9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any manner. There is hardly any procedural defect pointed out in admitting the petition filed under Section 9 of IBC. The said order of admission is self explanatory and conforms to all the requirements necessary for admitting a petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC - Merely for the reason that it was not contested by respondent no. 3, it can not be said that it was a collusive petition or that the order of admission was obtained by collusion between respondents no. 2 and 3. Prima-facie the order of admission of the petition filed under Section 9 IBC does not appear to be collusive which may warrant recall of the order in exercise of procedural review - Section 65 of IBC deals with the fraudulent and malicious initiation of proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2010 (IBC) against respondent no. 3. The above petition has been admitted and a moratorium has been declared against respondent no. 3 w.e.f. 9th May 2018 till completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process vide order dated 10.5.2018. At the same time Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has been appointed with the direction to proceed in accordance with Section 15 of IBC. The petitioner on acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid order preferred application for recall of the same on the ground that it has been obtained by respondents no. 2 and 3 collusively. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 29.8.2018 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnest money of ₹ 21, 60,000/- and a sum of ₹ 32,40,000/-; total ₹ 54,00,000/- and was required to deposit the balance amount of ₹ 1 crore 62 lakhs within 15 days from the date of auction and for deposit of the same he had applied for extension of 45 days time which had been extended from time to time but has not deposited the entire amount. It is admitted that there is no provision in IBC for review of the order admitting a petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC. It is also not disputed in law that the power to review can not be exercised unless there is specific provision for the same. As far as power to recall an order is concerned, it is nothing but a procedural review which can be availed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same time if the petitioner feels that it has perfected its right over the plant and machinery on the basis of e-auction, it may apply to the NCLT for excluding the assets which it has purchased in the e-auction ie. plant and machinery from the ambit of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. In either case, if the NCLT is so approached, the request of the petitioner shall be duly considered by the NCLT in accordance with law but we find no error or illegality on part of the NCLT in either admitting the petition under Section 9 of the Act or in rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of the order of admission. The discipline of IBC also contemplates minimum of interference on the judicial side in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
