Anil Goel & Anr vs Amit Agrawal
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 680 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may exercise its power under Rule 154(1) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to correct an order where the error sought to be rectified does not reflect the resolution of the Committee of Creditors on the withdrawal of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; a rectification that brings the order into conformity with the Committee's resolution and the settlement terms is a valid exercise of that power and does not deviate from the settlement agreement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anil Goel & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Amit Agrawal ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Shohit Chaudhary and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Advocates with Mr. Amit Agarwal, IRP. Mr. Krishna Dev Vyas, Advocate. Mr. Syed Sarfaraz Karim, Advocate.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
13.08.2020: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench invoking power vested in it under Rule 154(1) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 made some corrections in the order on the basis of resolution of dispute within the ambit of Section 12A of the I&B Code, keeping in view the Minutes of seventh meeting of the Committee of Creditors held on 10th June, 2020 which in its last para of Clause 5 clearly resolved that in the event of failure in compliance of withdrawal proposal - Settlement Agreement(s), Financial Creditors will have the right for reinstatement and revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process from the similar stage or from stage of issue of Form-G calling for Expression of Interest. Rectification carried out in accordance with this provision was necessitated as in the original order passed on 15th June, 2020 in last para it was reflected that in case there is a breach of settlement agreement of the Corporate Debtor, "petitioner" shall
Cont'd..../ -2-
have "liability" to file an appropriate application. The defect rectified is in nature of substitution of expression 'Petitioner' by 'Financial Creditors' and the expression 'liability' by 'liberty', which is strictly in conformity with the last para of Clause 5 of the Minutes of Seventh Meeting of the Committee of Creditors.
2. The rectification was required to be carried out as the error that had crept in the order did not correctly reflect the resolution in regard to revival/resolution of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process at the instance of Financial Creditors from the stage of issue of Form-G calling for Expression of Interest. We find no infirmity in the impugned order, which is in accordance with the true import of the Minutes of Seventh Meeting of the Committee of Creditors giving effect to the Settlement Agreement. The rectification carried out cannot be stated to be deviating from the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the resolution of the Committee of Creditors. Rule 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 appears to have been invoked properly. There is not scope for intervention in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 680 of 2020
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free