9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-II, (herein after referred to as NCLT) in I.A. No. 3247/ND/2022 which was filed in CP No. (IB)- 1441(ND)/2018. The said Interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 3247/ND/2022 was filed with a prayer to revive/restore CP No. 1441/2018 which was earlier withdrawn by the appellant on the plea that outside settlement had already been taken place. The Ld. NCLT by the order dated 11.08.2022 has dismissed the I.A. No. 3247/ND/2022. 2. By an order dated 21.01.2019 passed by NCLT, CP No. 1441.2018 was permitted to be withdrawn. The order dated 21.01.2019 is quoted herein below: "Ld. Counsels submit that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. In the light of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant assailing the impugned order, has argued that once while allowing withdrawal of the application by its order dated 21.01.2019, the Adjudicating Authority had granted liberty to the appellant for revival in case of violation of the terms of the settlement the Adjudicating Authority was not required to reject the application that too mainly relying on a judgment passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, which was already overruled by this Appellate Tribunal. 7. In sum and substance, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant requests for setting aside the impugned order and directing for restoring/reviving of CP No. 1441/2018. 8. Besides herein, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, we have perused the materials available on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t only about Rs.24,00,000/- (Twenty Four Lakhs) was still outstanding. Meaning thereby, that out of total claimed debt i.e. Rs. 1,34,18,197/-(One Crore thirty four lakhs eighteen thousand one hundred ninety seven) major portion of the operational debt was already cleared by the corporate debtor. 10. It is admitted position that last alleged dishonour of cheque had occurred on 24.12.2020. If the appellant was serious to pursue the matter then in that event immediately he would had approached the NCLT but he preferred to slumber over his right for several years and suddenly in the month of June, 2022 he approached the NCLT with a prayer to revive his application which was already withdrawn 21.01.2019. In such situation we are of the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
