2019 (8) TMI 876 - AT - IBC

Admissibility of petition - Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Corporate Debtor - section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The parties have settled the matter prior to the constitution of the Committee of Creditors and in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT and in exercise of inherent powers under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, we set aside the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2019 and allow the respondent (Operational Creditor) to withdraw the application under Section 9 of the I B Code. The application preferred by the Respondent under Section 9 of the I B Code is disposed of as withdrawn. The Adjudicating Authority will now close the proceeding - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by 'M/s. Unipik Automation Solutions' against 'Choudhery Cheese Bazar Pvt. Ltd.'
2. Settlement between the parties before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors.
3. Payment details and submissions by the parties involved.
4. Claims made by the 'Interim Resolution Professional.'
5. Decision and orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The Respondent, 'M/s. Unipik Automation Solutions,' filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against 'Choudhery Cheese Bazar Pvt. Ltd.' The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application, leading to an appeal by 'Mr. Ashish Choudhery,' a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor.

2. Before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors, the parties reached a settlement. 'M/s. Unipik Automation Solutions' received various demand drafts from the Appellant, settling the matter amicably.

3. The Managing Partner of 'M/s. Unipik Automation Solutions' confirmed the receipt of the amounts by Demand Draft. The 'Interim Resolution Professional' highlighted expenses incurred and claimed a fee for the services provided.

4. The 'Interim Resolution Professional' claimed a total amount of ?2,63,000, out of which ?2,00,000 was already received. The Corporate Debtor was directed to pay the remaining ?63,000 within 15 days, with a warning of contempt proceedings if the payment was not made.

5. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, invoking inherent powers under Rule 11, set aside the impugned order and allowed the withdrawal of the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code. All orders related to the appointment of the 'Interim Resolution Professional' and actions taken were revoked. The Respondent Company was released from legal restrictions to function independently. The appeal was allowed with specific directions and observations, with no costs imposed.