Skip to main content

CIRP can be resumed on failure of OTS

Citation : M/s. ICICIBankLimited vs OPTO Circuits (India) Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No. 146 of 2021

Date of Judgment/Order : 28th April,2022

Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench

Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical)

Background

The Petitioner had filed a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent before NCLT, Bengaluru. Subsequently, they agreed to a One time settlement offer. However, the Petitioner prayed before the NCLT permission to resume/revive the CIRP in the event of failure of the OTS. However, the NCLT refused and observed that the Appellant Bank is only entitled to file fresh Company Petition. This appeal was filed against said order.

Judgment

The NCLAT referred to its earlier judgment in Vivek Bansal vs. Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 552 of 2020, wherein it has been specifically held as under:

“We make it clear that in the event of default not adhering to the terms of ‘settlement agreement’ as regards the payment of the outstanding instalments, the ‘Operational Creditor’ shall be at liberty to seek revival/restoration of the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.”

The NCLAT terming the decision of the NCLT as erroneous, observed that the NCLT should have taken note of the judgment mentioned above particularly when it was brought to its notice by the Appellant and also have been affirmed by the Respondent is their prayer.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more