Skip to main content

NCLT - Simultaneous withdrawal application under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules and Regulation 30A of Insolvency Rules

IN THE MATTER OF Mr. K.C. Sanjeev vs Mr. Easwara Pillai Kesavan Nair, appeal was filed against order of NCLT alleging that the impugned order was passed by NLCT as the IRP did not duly move form F.A. for withdrawal.

The Appellant stated that the Appellant had settled with the original Operational Creditor soon after the Application under Section 9 was admitted on 23.10.2019 and even filed the settlement with the IRP under Regulation 30 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016 (Regulations in Short) requesting the IRP to place the settlement before the Adjudicating Authority. It is stated that the IRP asked for further Rs. 2 Lakhs claiming that it is required for closure of CIRP which the Appellant paid. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that documents regarding the settlement were handed over to the IRP on 08th November, 2019, and the same were required to be placed before the Adjudicating Authority within three days as required by the Regulations but the IRP did not do so and proceeded to constitute CoC on 20th November, 2019. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants states that Corporate Debtor being Solvent Company, the Appellant wants to save it and made serious efforts with all the Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors but the IRP is creating various hurdles.

Regulation 30A(1) of the amended Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 requires that an application for withdrawal under section 12A of the Insolvency Code shall be submitted to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) or Resolution Professional (RP), as the case may be, in Form FA of the Schedule to the said Regulations, before issue of expression of interest (EoI) under regulation 36A whereas Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016  authorize an NCLT to pass any such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice.

Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2019 SCC Online SC 73 in Para 79 and 80, the NCLAT held that it is apparent that Constitution of CoC makes a difference to the original Applicant and the Corporate Debtor in settling. Before Constitution of CoC they both can settle and withdrawal can be permitted but once CoC is constituted, the Scenario changes and requirement is to settle with the other Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors and one is required to go before the CoC which may allow withdrawal with 90 per cent voting share.

Subsequent to Judgment in the matter of Swiss Ribbons, the Regulations come to be amended. Considering this, and the practical difficulties which Applicants and the Corporate Debtor like the present one are facing, we are of the view that there is no reason why Parties cannot resort simultaneously to the window given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above Para 79. In our view when the Applicant wants to withdraw the application before Constitution of CoC, while resorting to amended Regulation 30 A, there is no bar for a party to simultaneously move Adjudicating Authority for withdrawal relying on Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules 2016 in view of Right given in the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Adjudicating Authority should receive such applications and can deal with the Applications in terms of above Para 79 while it may await response from IRP.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more