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IBC : Restoration of withdrawn application is subject to agreement between parties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parties, the compromise/consent term was placed on record before the Adjudicating Authority and the application was withdrawn.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of the Company Petition which has been rejected by Adjudicating Authority observing that when the Company Petition was withdrawn after settlement there is no specific provision anywhere in the Code for reopening of the Company Petition.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

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