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 The Operational Creditor had withdrawn the aforesaid Application on the ground of settlement between the Parties.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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more