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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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