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IBC : Restoration of withdrawn application is subject to agreement between parties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parties, the compromise/consent term was placed on record before the Adjudicating Authority and the application was withdrawn.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of the Company Petition which has been rejected by Adjudicating Authority observing that when the Company Petition was withdrawn after settlement there is no specific provision anywhere in the Code for reopening of the Company Petition.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

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more