Skip to main content

Failure or Breach of settlement agreement can't be a ground to CRP under the Insolvency Code

Cause Title : Bajaj Rubber Company Private Limited vs Saraswati Timber Private Limited, Company Petition No. (IB)-1441(ND)/2018, NCLT New Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 11.08.2022

Corum : Sh. Dharminder Singh (Judicial), Sh. L. N. Gupta (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. M/s. Alhuwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. vs. M/s. Logix Infratech Private Limited in (IB)882/ND/2022, NCLT New Delhi
  2. M/s Delhi Control Devices (P) Limited Vs. M/s Fedders Electric and Engineering Ltd., Company Petition (IB) No. 343/ALD/2018, NCLT Allahabad Bench
  3. Nitin Gupta vs Internationa Land Developers Private Limited., IB No. 507/ND/2020, NCLT Allahabad Bench

Background

M/s Bajaj Rubber Company Private Limited as the Operational Creditor, had filed an application  for initiation of CIR against the Corporate Debtor M/s. Ace Footmark Private Limited. The Operational Creditor had withdrawn the aforesaid Application on the ground of settlement between the Parties. Pursuant to the settlement post dated cheques were issued to the Applicant by the Corporate Debtor, many cheques got dishonoured. The Applicant has sought revival of the present application on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.

Judgment

Referring to the above judgments the bench held that as per the definition, Operational Debt means a claim in respect of provision of goods or services including employment. However, unpaid instalment as per the settlement agreement cannot be treated as operational debt as per Section 5 (21) of IBC. The failure or Breach of settlement agreement can't be a ground to trigger CRP against Corporate Debtor under the provision of IBC 2016 and remedy may lie elsewhere not necessarily before the Adjudicating Authority.

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

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

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