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

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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more