2019 (12) TMI 1141 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Initiation of CIRP - Permission for withdrawal of company petition - Parties settled the matter - Section 12A Read with Regulation 30A of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT - Interim Resolution Professional stated that he has received full fee and cost of publication. The Committee of Creditors is not yet constituted. The Procedure prescribed under Regulation 30A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), 2016 has been followed. This tribunal has power under Section 12A Read with Regulation 30A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) 2016 permitting for withdrawal of the application even after admission of Petition. Petition disposed of as Withdrawn under Section 12A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for withdrawal of Company Petition under Section 12A of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an Application filed by the Interim Resolution Professional seeking permission to withdraw the Company Petition under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Application was made after the admission of the petition under Section 9 of the Code, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the corporate debtor. The Interim Resolution Professional reported that the parties had settled the matter amicably, and thus requested the withdrawal of the Petition. It was noted that the Committee of Creditors had not been constituted at the time of the Application. The procedure outlined in Regulation 30A of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 was followed diligently. The Tribunal held the power under Section 12A along with Regulation 30A to permit withdrawal of the application post-admission of the Petition. Consequently, the Company Petition was disposed of as withdrawn under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The judgment further addressed the implications of the withdrawal, stating that the Moratorium under Section 14 stood vacated, and the Interim Resolution Professional was discharged. The Corporate Debtor was granted permission to function independently through its Board of Directors with immediate effect. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the Application as prayed for, bringing a resolution to the matter at hand.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural adherence, the authority of the Tribunal to permit withdrawal under Section 12A, the consequences of the withdrawal on the Moratorium and the role of the Interim Resolution Professional, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal implications and outcomes of the case.