Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (6) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (6) TMI 105 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues: Application under Section 9 of the Code for initiation of CIR proceedings against Corporate Debtor for defaulting settlement deed.

Analysis:
1. The application under Section 9 of the Code was filed by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on the settlement deed dated 18.04.2022.
2. Previously, an application under Section 9 was filed but withdrawn as the matter was settled. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to adhere to the settlement conditions, leading to the current petition after a demand notice was issued.
3. The Applicant argued that the present petition is maintainable due to a fresh notice being issued and the Corporate Debtor's failure to make the agreed payment as per the settlement deed.
4. The Corporate Debtor contended that the payment method was RTGS, but the account was closed. They argued against the maintainability of the present application, alleging ulterior motives.
5. The settlement deed specified the payment terms, including post-dated cheques or RTGS, with detailed amounts allocated for principal and interest.
6. Evidence showed an attempt by the Corporate Debtor to make the payment via RTGS, but the account was closed, leading to the returned amount.
7. The intention to make payment was evident, with the first installment due on a specific date, showing willingness to adhere to the settlement terms. The Operational Creditor's actions were questioned.
8. Additional evidence, like a demand draft, indicated the Corporate Debtor's intent to pay as per the settlement, questioning the Operational Creditor's motives for triggering CIR proceedings.
9. The Tribunal concluded that no cause of action existed to initiate CIR proceedings, emphasizing the importance of clean hands in such matters.
10. Consequently, the application was rejected as not maintainable, without costs, highlighting the need to prevent misuse of legal processes for recovery purposes and uphold the legislation's intent to maintain Corporate Debtors as going concerns.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates