9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, if any reached. Even according to the Appellant s case, full payment under the said settlement was never made before admission of Section 9 Application. The Corporate Debtor does not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, nor raised any defense and the debt and default is proved as held by the Adjudicating Authority, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting Section 9 Application. The Appellant has relied on another settlement entered vide Minutes of Meeting dated 30.11.2022 with Agreement dated 08.12.2022 under which the Appellant has claimed to have paid the amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs by 08.12.2022. From the facts which have been brought on record, it is clear that CoC was constituted on 02.12.2022 by the RP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This Appeal has been filed by a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, challenging the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court II, admitting Section 9 Application filed by the Operational Creditor Amit Steels. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding this Appeal are: (i) Respondent No.1 supplied certain goods to the Corporate Debtor Truly Creative Developers Pvt. Ltd. . The Operational Creditor gave a Demand Notice dated 09.04.2018 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) claiming principal amount of Rs.11,23,651/- with interest. The Demand Notice was not replie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue Notice. Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1. Let Reply be filed within three days. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within three days thereof. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Committee of Creditors has already been constituted. 4. List the Appeal on 22.12.2022. In the meantime, no further steps be taken in pursuance of the impugned order. 4. In the Appeal, reply has been filed by Respondent No.1 Operational Creditor to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the Appellant. Reply has also been filed by the Resolution Professional ( RP ). Several Intervention Applications have been filed in this Appeal by different Applicants claiming to be creditors o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settlement, due to which the order was passed on 11.11.2022, admitting Section 9 Application. It is further submitted that after the order dated 11.11.2022, settlement dated 30.11.2022 has been entered between the parties, which was executed on 08.12.2022 in pursuance of which the Appellant has made payment of Rs.8,50,000/- to the Operational Creditor. The Appellant further contended that he is ready to clear all dues of the Operational Creditor. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that Application filed by Operational Creditor was not competent, since the Power of Attorney holder who filed the Application was not competent to file the Application as he being Power of Attorney Holder of only a sister concern. 8. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompleting the various projects and the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor needs to be completed. The learned Counsel for the RP as well as Intervenors submitted that any settlement with the Operational Creditors can be recognized only when it is approved by the CoC as per Section 12A of the Code read with Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the CIRP Regulations ) by ninety per cent vote share of the CoC, since the CoC was constituted even before filing of this Appeal. 10. Insofar as, the competence of Section 9 Application by a person not authorised to file Section 9 Application is concerned, it is contended that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 2019. No replies were filed by the Corporate Debtor to both the Notices and to this Petition. 13. In the Appeal, reliance has been placed on some settlement with Operational Creditor dated 07.12.2022. We find that Operational Creditor proceeded with the Application even after 07.12.2022, which indicates that Operational Creditor was not fully satisfied with the settlement, if any reached. Even according to the Appellant s case, full payment under the said settlement was never made before admission of Section 9 Application. The Corporate Debtor does not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, nor raised any defense and the debt and default is proved as held by the Adjudicating Authority, no error was committed by the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
