9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim was submitted by the Appellant on 21.12.2022 and the order was passed on 22.12.2022 on the application bearing 6271 of 2022. There is not even an iota of a doubt that the Adjudicating Authority has been grossly misled by the IRP at the time when the order was passed on 22.12.2022 but instead of rectifying its mistake and or to undo the injustice caused to the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the application bearing 226 of 2023 holding that it could not find any justifiable reason to allow the prayer made in the application and rather in the entire impugned order expressed its anguish and dissatisfaction about the working of the IRP and repeatedly cautioned him to be careful while exercise of his functions and discharging his duties. The filing of application under Section 7 by the Appellant is in no way causes any hindrance in maintaining the present application by the Appellant because the said application has been filed in terms of the order passed in the application bearing 6271 of 2022. If the misrepresentation/concealment of any fact by the IRP to the Adjudicating Authority is considered lightly by relegating the Financial Creditor to any other reme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that he has received fee and cost. So considering this, we permit the applicant to withdraw the application. Accordingly, the Company Petition bearing No. IB/322/ND/2021 is dismissed and withdraw. With this the present IA stands disposed of. 4 . However, the Operational Creditor filed RA/82/2022 invoking Rule 11 of the Rules for seeking revival of the CP (IB) No. 322/ND/2021, inter alia, on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has failed to abide by the terms of the settlement. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2022 and the main petition was revived and restored to its original position with a direction to the RP to continue with the CIRP. The said order is reproduced as under:- RA/82/2022 This is an application filed by Applicant/OC under Rule 11 of the Rules seeking revival of the main petition. We have heard Counsel for the Applicant. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that in terms of the settlement agreement between the OC and CD, the CD has failed to abide by the terms of settlement agreement and they have referred to the judgment of Hon ble NCLAT in Pooja Finlease Ltd. Vs. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd. Anr. by order dated 18.07.2022 in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring and having noted the contents of the application and the prayers thereto, this Tribunal allows the present application as the Resolution Professional has confirmed that no CoC is formed till date and no claim has been received from any claimant and also no claim is outstanding. However, since the last date of filing the claim is 23.12.2022, in case, if the RP receives any claim he should pass on the same to the CD to enable the CD to make good of such claim. Since time granted in paper publication inviting the public claim is up to 23.12.2022, the IRP will be relieved from his duties and responsibilities on the close of the business hours on 23.12.2022. In view of the above, the CD is relieved from the clutches of CIRP process. Dasti of this order is allowed. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the Adjudicating Authority allowed the application observing thus this Tribunal allows the application as the RP has confirmed that no CoC is formed till date and no claim has been received from any claimant and also no claim is outstanding . The Adjudicating Authority further observed that however, since the last date of filing the claim is 23.12.2022, in case, if the RP receives any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal cautions the RP for allowing his counsel to act without proper instructions which resulted in slippage of claim filed by the Canara Bank during consideration of Section 12A application by this Adjudicating Authority . It further observed that as the present application has come for consideration after discharge of the CIRP process, this Tribunal directs the Canara Bank/Applicant to file a fresh Section 7 application, if permitted by law against the CD, if the Canara Bank is entitled to do so as on date It also observed that we do not find any justifiable reason to allow the prayers made in this application . It also observed that Once again the RP who acted as IRP is directed to act with due care and caution in future while exercising his functions and discharging the duties as IRP. Corporate Debtor is also directed to look into the matter of Canara Bank s claim and discharge the same as per the terms of repayment of the loan/credit facilities availed from the Canara Bank . 12 . Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.02.2023, the present appeal has been filed. 13 . Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed a patent error in dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndividual corporate debtor is allowed to settle its claim It is submitted by the Appellant that by way of settlement an amount of Rs. 12 Cr. has been given to the OC out of the kitty of the Financial Creditor which has caused a substantial prejudice to the Appellant being a financial creditor, even if the Appellant has filed a petition under Section 7 before the Adjudicating Authority after the impugned order was passed. 15. In reply, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the application bearing 6271 of 2022 was rightly decided by the Adjudicating Authority because nothing was there before the Adjudicating Authority as a fact that any claim made by the Appellant was received by the IRP. It is also submitted that the Appellant being a complete stranger to the main petition cannot ask for restoration of the main petition especially when the Appellant has already filed an application under Section 7 in which the pleadings of the parties are complete. He has also submitted that once the CIRP has been withdrawn then a separate fresh application can be filed before the Adjudicating Authority and main petition cannot be revived. 16 . We have heard Counsel for the parties and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
