9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much entitled to submit their claims before the Adjudicating Authority as per the procedure laid down under the Code. In second category of matters, the Financial/Operational Creditor whose claim before this Tribunal has been disposed of, with a direction to approach the IRP can seek revival of their company petition, in view of the changed circumstances, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal, to recall the said order. In so far as the third category of cases, the same can be continued before the Tribunal. Therefore, the argument that allowing withdrawal of the CIRP ordered against the Corporate Debtor, by virtue of a settlement would jeopardize recovery opportunity of the FC/OC, and amounts failure to hear the concerned parties is totally unfounded and mischievous. This is a fit case to exercise the inherent power under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 by this AA, and accordingly hold that the application deserves to be allowed - application allowed. - IA No. 792 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 31/9/HDB/2020 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2022 - Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badrinath Nandula, Member (J) And Veera Brahma Rao Arekapudi, Member (T) For Appearing Parties : K.V. Srinivas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it may be stated that the following provisions under the I B Code, besides the Regulation, provide for the exit of the corporate debtor from CIRP, both at pre and post admission stages, before or after constitution of COC, besides confer discretionary power on the AA, to either allow or dismiss the prayer for such withdrawal. 8. Section 12A of the Code and 30A of CIRP Regulations which have come into force with effect from 06.06.2018 and 25.07.2019 respectively, are as follows:- Section 12A of IBC The Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under section 7 or section 9 or section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety percent voting share of the committee of creditors, in such manner as may be prescribed . Regulation 30A(1) of the CIRP Regulations Regulation 30A(1) of the CIRP Regulations requires that an application for withdrawal under section 12A shall be submitted to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) or Resolution Professional (RP), as the case may be, in Form FA of the Schedule to the said Regulations, before issue of expression of interest (EoI) under regulation 36A. Thus, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter hearing all the concerned parties and considering all the relevant factors on the facts of each case (emphasis is ours). 11. Thus, hearing all the concerned parties and considering all relevant factors of the facts of each case, is sine quo non, before the Tribunal allows or dismisses the application filed by IRP for withdrawal of CIRP against the corporate debtor. However, neither the ruling in Swiss Ribbon, IBC or any Regulation stated/contained any 'definition' as to who can be considered as the concerned parties , for the purpose of hearing while deciding a withdrawal petition filed by IRP. 12. No doubt, upon triggering the CIRP against a Corporate Debtor and on appointment of an IRP, the dispute will transform into a dispute in rem, hence slips into the domain of the people at large. In so far as the case on hand is concerned, it has been stated in the application that the IRP had already caused public notice inviting claims, however it is not stated whether any claim is received pursuant to the said publication. It is needless to say that, the Code provides for fixing of timeframe by the IRP for submission of claims by Financial as well as Operational Cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporate Debtor, by virtue of a settlement would jeopardize recovery opportunity of the FC/OC, and amounts failure to hear the concerned parties is totally unfounded and mischievous. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 324/2020 in the matter of Ess Investments Private Limited vs. Lokhandwala Infrastructure Private Limited and Anr., in identical situation held as follows:- Para. 6: Since the disputes between the Respondent No. 1 and Dalmia Group Holdings has been settled and the order dated 19.09.2019 has been set aside, it will be open to the appellant to proceed against the Respondent No. 1 before the NCLT by seeking recall of the order dated - 4.09.2018 and revival of its application No. CP (IB) No. 4000/MP/2018 16. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal is of the opinion that no prejudice much less serious will be caused to any intending financial/operational creditors who are entitled to move their claims before the IRP, if the withdrawal of CIRP is ordered pursuant to any settlement/compromise. 17. Further, Hon'ble NCLAT Chennai Bench, in re SBI vs. M/s. AFCO Energy Pte. Limited Anr. discloses that the Hon'ble NCLAT, approved t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
