9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LD 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. - Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No. 146 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2022 - [ Justice M. Venugopal ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Kanthi Narahari ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application filed by the Appellant vide order dated 18.03.2020 and initiated CIRP Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. 4. While so the Corporate Debtor filed a Writ Petition bearing no. 6640 of 2020 before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the admission order passed by the NCLT and the Hon ble High Court granted interim stay on 24.03.2020 and subsequently extended the interim stay. During subsistence of interim stay, the Corporate Debtor approached the Appellant Bank on 22.04.2020 with one time settlement proposal agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 22.7 Crores towards full and final settlement. In pursuance of OTS, the Corporate Debtor made a payment of Rs. 4.5 Crores to the Appellant Bank as an upfront payment and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. Anr. in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 552 of 2020 dated 14.07.2020 held that in the event of default and not adhering to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Operational Creditor shall be at liberty to seek revival/restoration of the CIRP Proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Ld. Counsel prayed this Bench to set aside the portion of the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 273 of 2020 to the extent that the Appellant is entitled to file fresh Company Petition in accordance with the terms of the Code. Respondent s Submissions: 10. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent did not deny the facts as enumerated in the Appeal however submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Bengaluru Bench) in CP No. 199 of 2018 against the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application and initiated CIRP Proceedings by imposing moratorium vide order dated 18.03.2020. It is also fact that the Corporate Debtor filed Writ Petition bearing WP No. 6640 of 2020 before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, and the Hon ble High Court stayed the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 18.03.2020 for a period of eight weeks and thereafter extended another period of eight weeks. 15. While matter stood thus, the Corporate Debtor vide a letter dated 22.04.2020 addressed to the Appellant Bank stating that it intends to revise its OTS Propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal vide order dated 10.08.2020 with a direction/liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rule s 2016. 18. As per the directions of this Tribunal (Supra) the Corporate Debtor filed an Application dated 05.08.2020 seeking withdrawal of CIRP Proceedings under Section 12 A of the I B Code, 2016 read with Regulation 30 A of the IBBI Regulations 2016 and r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rule s 2016 with a prayer as under: whereof, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the Petitioner and the Corporate Debtor, it is hereby prayed that the instant matter be disposed of as settled by giving liberty to the Petitioner Bank to resume the CIRP in case of non-compliance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have taken into consideration the decision of this Tribunal being the Appellate Authority as a precedent in a similarly situated facts of the case. Even otherwise the Adjudicating Authority failed to take note of the prayer made by the Corporate Debtor in I.A. No. 273 of 2020 dated 05.08.2020 wherein it is prayed that the matter may be disposed of as settled by giving liberty to the Petitioner Bank (Appellant) to resume the CIRP in case of non-compliance of the terms of the OTS. 22. However, the Adjudicating Authority committed grave error in giving liberty to the Appellant to file fresh Company Petition instead of giving liberty to revive/resume the CIRP Proceedings in case the Corporate Debtor failed to adhere to comply with the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
