9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany Petitions bearing Nos.584 and 585 of 2014 and consequently for the liquidation of respondent company. The petitions were disposed of vide order dated 12.01.2015. 2. Both the parties had entered into a settlement and filed the consent terms with this Court along with a settlement agreement dated 08.01.2015. As per the settlement, an amount of USD 30,379,115.60 cents were to be paid by the respondent company to the petitioner, in 12 equal monthly installments as enumerated in the said agreement. The said agreement was entered pursuant to the mutual discussions where such an amount was offered by the guarantors in full and final settlement of total outstanding of USD 35,740,136 (including principal amount of USD 34,038,225 and liquidated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent and it reiterated that the respondent shall be committed to make the outstanding payments as envisaged in the settlement between the parties on or before 15.11.2015 along with the interest @ 12% pa. Looking at the overall circumstances and with a view to assess the bonafides of the respondent, the matter was listed for further consideration on 04.12.2015. 7. On 04.01.2016, yet again CA Nos.9/2016 and 10/2016 were moved in respective petitions stating inter alia that the respondent had again failed to adhere to the settlement terms and hence Liquidation Petition(s) be revived again. Notices were issued and even the assistance of the learned Official Liquidator was sought. On 19.02.2016, the learned counsel for respondent submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court firstly till 15.11.2015 with interest @ 12% p.a., and then for further periods till the entire payment was cleared by the respondent by 03.05.2016. 10. Thus where the petitioner company had received an huge sum of USD 31 million approx. under the settlement agreement would it then be entitled to seek revival of the liquidation proceedings, seeking resort to Clause 4 (supra). The answers would be "No". 11. It is the settled law that if the time limit is provided by a consent order, the Court has the jurisdiction / power to extend such time on the basis that when such consent terms are filed by the parties and accepted by the Court, such terms merge in the order of the Court and then the Court is well within its power to extend the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for winding up would stand admitted; secondly, that the creditor (the appellants before us) would be at liberty forthwith to apply for consequential directions regarding advertisement and returnable date; thirdly, that the respondent-company would not be able to oppose such a application and, lastly, that the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,000 or the balance remaining due on the date of default would become payable immediately. Though these consequences are provided in the settlement itself and the order passed on the basis of the settlement, we cannot see how these consequences lead to the conclusion that the court's power of extension of time is in any way curbed or taken away. None of these clauses refers to the question of extension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
