9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned counsel for the petitioner to deposit the amount so received only once a liquidator is appointed is not acceptable and such a plea cannot be allowed. In view of above, the applications for revival of the liquidation proceedings are dismissed. - CO.PET. 584/2014, CO.PET. 585/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2017 - MR. YOGESH KHANNA J. Presence: Mr. Vivek Sibal, Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Advocates for petitioner. Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. KPS Kohli and Mr. Milin Singh Negi, Advocates for respondent. YOGESH KHANNA, J. CA No. 9/2016 in CO.PET. 584/2014; CA Nos.10/2016 in CO.PET. 585/2014 1. These applications have been moved by the petitioner under Rule 6 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescheduled again and again at the instance of the respondent company. Reference was made to an order dated 12.01.2015 of this Court where the undertaking given by the respondent was accepted by the Court and the respondent was directed to remain bound by the same. 5. But since there was default so CA No.3055/2015 and 3057/2015 were moved in Company Petition Nos.584/2014 and 585/2014 respectively seeking revival of the petitions in terms of the order dated 12.01.2015 stating inter alia that the respondent had failed to perform its obligation in terms of the settlement. 6. Notices were issued to the respondent company. Appearance was entered on behalf of the respondent and on 09.10.2015 it was pleaded that default occurred due to adver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed payment of the agreed principal amount of USD 30,379,115.60 and as the entire payment was cleared by 04.05.2016, including the default amount with agreed interest of 12% p.a., the liquidation proceedings cannot be revived against its running company with 4200 employees, especially when the petitioner had not offered to deposit the amounts so received by it under the settlement agreement. It is argued that though there was delay in payment of installments but the time to pay the installments was extended by the Court and thus such delayed payments were made though, with interest @ 12% pa. 9. Admittedly, the amount so settled between the parties was to be paid by 30th April, 2016 and that it could not be paid by the respondent by such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is really implied by saying that an order is automatic or self-operative. Every order passed upon consent makes provision for the fulfillment of certain terms by either party and usually provides for what is the consequence of breach of any of its terms. 31. In that sense every order is an order which is self-operative, but we do not see how, assuming that an order is self-operative in this sense, it can necessarily be inferred that the court's jurisdiction to pass such orders as it deems fit in the interests of justice, can be limited or taken away. Turning to the consent terms upon which the order was passed it is clear that the consequence of the nonpayment of the instalments is provided in clause 4 of the consent terms and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxx 51. The question then is, should this court in appeal lend its assistance to a petition for winding up the company when, although the petitioner is being paid the full amount which he bargained for, he deliberately does not accept it and insists on the company being wound up. We do not think that we can lend the aid of the court to such a party. 13. Thus, per law discussed above, since the petitioner company has accepted the payments in the extended period and that too with interest on the default installments, then simply because there was delay in making the payments under the settlement agreement, it would not be justifiable to take recourse to clause 4 of the Settlement Agreement and thus vitiating the efforts ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
