9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the MoU would get revived in toto. The Application is allowed, restoring the main Petition. - I.A. No. 5 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 28/9/AMR/2020 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2022 - Telaprolu Rajani, J. (Member (J)) For the Appellant : S.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate For the Respondents : C. Raghu, Advocate ORDER Telaprolu Rajani, J. (Member (J)) 1. This Application is filed under Section 60(5) seeking to restore and reopen the CP(IB) No. 28/9/AMR/2020 and to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor on the grounds that the CP filed by the Applicant was withdrawn on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Wherein the settlement was agreed for Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in 25 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Limited, wherein it was held that the Tribunal exercising power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 can restore the Company Petition which was dismissed as withdrawn, after recording the settlement terms between the parties, more particularly when the parties themselves have agreed that the Applicant can approach the Tribunal for revival in case of filing of consent terms. This judgment also answers the argument that Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 cannot be invoked, as no application is pending before the NCLT. 4. The argument of the Respondent's Counsel is that in this case there is no such agreement for revival. In answer to the said contention the Counsel for the Applicant relies on the judgment of NCLAT, New Delhi in Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was observed that undoubtedly settlements have to be encouraged because ultimate purpose of the IBC is to facilitate the continuance and rehabilitation of the Corporate Debtor as distinct from allowing it to go into liquidation. But in the said case it was observed that the Adjudicating Authority therein have decided a Petition under Section 7, directing the Respondents to settle the remaining claims and that approach was held as not proper. 5. The contention that once the Application is revived, the Applicant would be entitled to claim the entire amount mentioned in the claim petition which he cannot do, in view of the fresh Memorandum of Understanding, is not at all cogent. A Memorandum of Understanding came into picture only to put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
