9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 20 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyFiling of fresh Company Petition in accordance with the provisions of the code instead giving liberty to resume the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor - whether the Adjudicating Authority s decision in directing that failing to adhere to terms and conditions of one time settlement, the Appellant Bank is entitled to file fresh Company Petition is justifiable? - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Tribunal comes to a resultant conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 in I.A. No. 273 of 2020 in CP 199 of 2018 with regard to sub para 4 of para 9 of the impugned order regarding the observation/liberty to file a fresh Company Petition by the Appellant Bank is erroneous and without application of mind and without following the Principles of Natural Justice and not adhering to the decision of this Tribunal being the Appellate Authority, is hereby quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Adjudicating Authority's decision regarding the Appellant Bank's entitlement to file a fresh Company Petition. 2. Consideration of the settlement agreement between the Appellant Bank and the Corporate Debtor. 3. Application of the Principles of Natural Justice in the decision-making process. Issue 1 - Interpretation of Adjudicating Authority's Decision: The Appellant Bank filed an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order directing the Appellant to file a fresh Company Petition instead of reviving the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in case of non-compliance with the settlement terms. The Appellant argued that a similar situation in a previous case allowed for revival of CIRP proceedings. The Respondent contended that freezing of the Corporate Debtor's accounts prevented compliance with the settlement terms, requesting a fresh proposal submission. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, noting the Adjudicating Authority's failure to consider the settlement agreement's terms and the Appellate Tribunal's precedent in a similar case. Issue 2 - Consideration of Settlement Agreement: The settlement agreement between the Appellant Bank and the Corporate Debtor involved a one-time settlement proposal for repayment of dues. The Corporate Debtor faced account freezing, hindering payment compliance. The Appellant Bank sought revival of CIRP proceedings upon non-compliance, referencing a previous Tribunal decision. The Adjudicating Authority's failure to consider the settlement terms and the Appellate Tribunal's precedent led to the Tribunal quashing the decision and setting new directions for potential CIRP revival. Issue 3 - Application of Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority's decision erroneous, lacking application of mind and deviating from established principles of natural justice. By setting aside the Authority's order and issuing new directions, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adherence to legal precedents and fair decision-making processes. The Tribunal's ruling allowed the Appellant Bank to seek CIRP revival upon non-compliance with the settlement agreement terms, ensuring procedural fairness and legal consistency. In summary, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the Adjudicating Authority's decision, the settlement agreement's impact, and the application of Principles of Natural Justice, ultimately allowing the Appellant Bank to seek CIRP revival in case of non-compliance with the settlement terms, setting aside the Authority's order for a fresh Company Petition filing.
|
