9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 631 - AT - IBCAdmission of application filed by the Operational Creditor u/s 9 of the IBC, 2016 - withdrawal of the petition on the basis of the settlement agreement - existence of debt and default admitted - HELD THAT - Since, it is a case where the debt and default has been admitted by the CD by entering into a settlement deed, part payment was made but the remaining amount was not paid despite repeated emails, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly admitted the application which is above the threshold provided under Section 4 of the Code and there was no pre-existing dispute. The argument of the Appellant that settlement amount cannot be claimed as an operational debt is totally inconsequential as it has been held by this Court in the case of IDBI Trausteeship Services Limited Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Limited 2023 (5) TMI 770 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI . The CD, especially in the cases of Section 9, are adopting this modus operandi by entering into a settlement with the OC in respect of its dues which arises either from the goods supplied or services provided, some payment is made and then there is a breach in the settlement thereafter all sorts of pleas are raised by the CD to deny the right of the OC regarding the resolution of its dues for which the application under Section 9 is filed. There are no merit in the present appeal for the purpose of interference and the same is hereby dismissed.
Issues:
- Admittance of application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. - Settlement agreement between parties and subsequent breach of terms by the Corporate Debtor. - Application for restoration of the main company petition. - Admissibility of the application under Section 9 of the Code. - Challenge to the restoration of the petition by the Appellant. - Forfeiture of right to file reply by the Corporate Debtor. - Legal implications of settlement agreements in insolvency cases. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor against the order admitting an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Operational Creditor had filed the application seeking resolution of an amount of Rs. 2,30,57,100/-, leading to a settlement agreement between the parties. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to adhere to the terms of the settlement, prompting the Operational Creditor to file an application for restoration of the main company petition, which was subsequently allowed on the grounds of default in payment schedule. The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor had only paid a partial amount of the agreed settlement despite repeated reminders and requests. The Corporate Debtor's failure to pay the remaining amount led to the restoration of the main petition, and the Corporate Debtor forfeited the right to file a reply. The Tribunal admitted the application under Section 9 of the Code, as the debt and default were admitted by the Corporate Debtor through the settlement agreement, and there was no pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Appellant contested the admissibility of the application under Section 9, arguing that the settlement amount could not be claimed as operational debt. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, citing precedents such as IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Limited. The judgment highlighted a trend where Corporate Debtors enter into settlements with Operational Creditors, make partial payments, and then raise objections to avoid resolution of dues, referencing cases like Desh Bhushan Jain Vs. Abhay Kumar and Finsbury Global FZE Vs. Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without costs, emphasizing the importance of honoring settlement agreements and upholding the rights of Operational Creditors in insolvency cases.
|
