Skip to main content

IBC : Restoration of withdrawn application is subject to agreement between parties

 Cause Title : IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs Nirmal Lifestyle Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 117 of 2023, NCLAT-Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 15/5/2023

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Pooja Finlease v. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd., C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 103 of 2022, NCLAT- Delhi
  2. Himadri Foods Ltd. v. Credit Suisse Funds AG, C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 1060 of 2020
  3. Krishna Garg & Anr. v. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 92 of 2021
  4. SRLK Enterprises LLP v. JALAN Transolutions (India) Ltd., C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 294 of 2021

Background

An application was filed before the NCLAT, under section 7 of I&B Code, 2016. Subsequently, a compromise being reached between parties, the compromise/consent term was placed on record before the Adjudicating Authority and the application was withdrawn. However, on the Respondent failing to honour the consent terms, the Appellant file an IA seeking revival of the Company Petition which has been rejected by Adjudicating Authority observing that when the Company Petition was withdrawn after settlement there is no specific provision anywhere in the Code for reopening of the Company Petition.

Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that it is an admitted position that the consent terms provided for settlement amount, payment plan as well as event of defaults. One of the events was, default in making payment of any of the tranches mentioned in th consent terms and it was also mentioned in the consent terms that in the event of default, the Appellant shall be entitled to revive the present Company Application or initiate any other action that may accrue to it under law and the appellant shall also be entitled to recover all expenses incurred in that regard.

A perusal of the order of the NCLT allowing withdrawal of the original petition indicates that a separate consent terms were executed between the parties and the consent term was brought on record along with the Application.

The NCLAT then analysed the judgments referred to by all parties including the Adjudicating Authority and concluded that :-

1) Pooja Finlease (supra) fully supports the submission of the Appellant.
2) Himadri Foods (supra) also supports the Appellant but was incorrectly read the AA.
3) Krishna Garg &  SRLK Enterprises (supra) referred to by the Respondents don't apply here as the consent terms were brought on record.

The NCLAT held that in the present case, consent terms were brought on record since they were part of the Application under Section 12A of the Code which was noticed in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority itself. When consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential.

When the consent term itself contemplates a clause for revival in event of default and default having been committed by the Corporate Debtor, rejection of revival is to deny the Financial Creditor rightful remedy. Non-mention of specific liberty in the Order is inconsequential in view of the clear terms in the settlement which was the basis of withdrawal of Company Petition.

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