Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent deed, part payment was made but the remaining amount was not paid despite repeated emails, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly admitted the application which is above the threshold provided under Section 4 of the Code and there was no pre-existing dispute. The argument of the Appellant that settlement amount cannot be claimed as an operational debt is totally inconsequential as it has been held by this Court in the case of IDBI Trausteeship Services Limited Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Limited [ 2023 (5) TMI 770 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] . The CD, especially in the cases of Section 9, are adopting this modus operandi by entering into a settlement with the OC in respect of its dues which arises eith .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Wind/111 04.04.2019 4,59,000/- RA/2019/Wind/020 12.06.2019 2,07,62,100/- RA/2019/Wind/028 10.12.2019 4,09,967/- 4. During the pendency of the application, the parties entered into a settlement on 13.12.2022 as per which against the amount of Rs. 2,30,57,100/-, the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay Rs. 1,77,00,000/-. 5. Consequent upon the settlement, both the parties jointly made a statement before the Tribunal that the matter has been amicably settled, therefore, the Operational Creditor did not choose to proceed with the Company Petition and thus, the same was dismissed as not pressed. The order passed in this regard on 03.01.2023 is reproduced as under:- 1. Ms. Shreya Jha, Ld. Counsel for the Operational Creditor present. Ms. Kalyani Wagle, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hedule right from the beginning. The Corporate Debtor vide emails dated 16.06.2023 and 20.11.2023 and beyond, addressed to the Applicant, made several requests for extension of time on account of purported shortage of funds and also gave assurances to bring the payment schedule up to date. On the request of Corporate Debtor, the Applicant repeatedly extended the time given to the Corporate Debtor for clearing all the due payments. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant further submits that till date the Corporate Debtor has made payment of only Rs.56,40,000/-. Even after repeated follow-ups through emails, meetings, phone calls, etc. by the Applicant, the Corporate Debtor miserably failed to clear its pending amounts, therefore the Applicant has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... more than Rs. 1 Cr. was found due and payable and there was no pre-existing dispute existing between the parties, therefore, it was found to be a fit case for admission and thus, the application filed under Section 9 of the Code was admitted by the impugned order on 06.06.2024 and Prakash Naringrekar was appointed as the IRP while imposing the moratorium. 8. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that after the withdrawal of the petition on the basis of the settlement agreement, the outstanding amount cannot be claimed and has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of SRLK Enterprises LLP Vs. Jalan Transolutions (India) Ltd., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 294 of 2021 decided on 08.04.2021. 9. It is contended that no liberty was give .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Bhushan Jain Vs. Abhay Kumar, CA (AT) (Ins) No. 124 of 2024 and Finsbury Global FZE Vs. Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 796 of 2023. 11. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The facts of this case are not much in dispute as the Corporate Debtor had conceded to pay the dues of the Operational Creditor and entered into a settlement agreement dated 13.12.2022. However, the Corporate Debtor paid only Rs. 56,40,000/- and despite repeated request and reminders did not pay the remaining amount and adhered to the payment schedule. However, believing the CD, the OC filed the memo of withdrawal of the main petition on the basis of the settlement deed but in the said memo reserved its rights to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates