Aramco Private Limited vs Ideal Real Estates Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Aramco Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Ideal Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant: Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kaushik Banerjee, Ms. Kriti Gera, Mr. Sourav Roy, Mr. Pranav Bafna, Mr. Anshu Deshpande, Mr. Shayak Chakraborty, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Ms. Priyata Chakraborty, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)

19.12.2024: This appeal is directed against the order dated

03.04.2024 by which RST.A (IBC)/17(KB) 2023 filed in C.P. (IB) No.

1066/KB/2019 by the appellant for revival of the main Company Petition

i.e. C.P. (IB) No. 1066/KB/2019 has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant filed a petition

under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short

'Code') read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (application to

the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor

namely, 'Ideal Real Estates Private Limited' for the resolution of an

Cont'd..../ -2-

amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- before the National Company Law Tribunal,

Kolkata Bench.

3. During the pendency of the application the parties entered into an

agreement on 07.06.2022 for the settlement of their dispute in which

both the parties had agreed as follows:

"3. It is hereby recorded, declared and confirmed that both

parties agree and accept that the Second Party shall make

payment amount of Rs.1,92,88,886.00 (Rupees One Crore

Ninety Two Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and

Eighty Six Only) (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement

Amount) to the First Party in 35 (Thirty Five) monthly

instalments. It is also agreed between the parties that no

payment other than above is due whatsoever and cannot and

shall not be claimed by the First Party.

4. The First Party confirm that upon payment of the above said

settlement amount the First Party shall have no claim and/or

demand in any manner whatsoever in respect to the loan given

by the First Party to the second party and as claimed by the

First Party.

5. The Parties to this agreement agree that the Second party

will transfer the Instalment amount to the First Party by way of

NEFT/RTGS. The details of the payment schedule is as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -3-

Date of payment Amount

10.08.2022 2,50,000 20.09.2022 2,50,000 10.10.2022 2,50,000 20.11.2022 2,50,000 10.12.2022 2,50,000 20.01.2023 2,50,000 10.02.2023 2,50,000 20.03.2023 2,50,000 10.04.2023 2,50,000 20.05.2023 2,50,000 10.06.2023 2,50,000 30.06.2023 2,50,000 20.07.2023 2,50,000 10.08.2023 2,50,000 30.08.2023 2,50,000 20.09.2023 2,50,000 10.10.2023 2,50,000 30.10.2023 2,50,000 20.11.2023 2,50,000 10.12.2023 2,50,000 30.12.2023 2,50,000 20.01.2024 2,50,000 10.02.2024 2,50,000 28.02.2024 2,50,000 20.03.2024 2,50,000 10.04.2024 2,50,000 30.04.2024 7,50,000 20.05.2024 15,00,000 10.06.2024 15,10,651 30.06.2024 15,00,000 20.07.2024 15,23,871 10.08.2024 15,00,000 30.08.2024 15,00,000 20.09.2024 15,00,000 01.10.2024 15,04,364 Total 1,92,88,886

7. The parties to this agreement agree that in case of default of

payment by the Second Party in above mentioned payment

schedule an interest of 18% of the default amount will be

payable immediately to the First Party.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -4-

9. In default of the performance of the agreed terms of

settlement by the second party the first party will be free to

apply to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench,

Kolkata to restore the Company Petition being C.P.(IB) No.

1066/KB/2019 and/or instigate any further legal action as per

the laws of the land over and above the steps in regards to this

default.

13. The parties to this agreement agree that upon execution of

this agreement the First Party will forthwith withdraw the

instant application being C.P (I.B.) No. 1066/KB/2019 pending

before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata

Bench, Kolkata."

4. When the case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on

08.06.2022, counsel for both the parties were present and they jointly

submitted that the total amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- has been agreed to

be paid in instalments. Meaning thereby the Corporate Debtor accepted

the debt and since it was not in a position to pay the amount in lump

sum, therefore, agreed to pay the same in instalments to the Financial

Creditor/ Appellant who accepted the same.

5. The said settlement agreement dated 07.06.2022 was also

produced before the court which was taken on record by the Tribunal

and thereafter in view of the statement made that the respondent shall

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -5-

pay the amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- in instalments, the Financial

Creditor having been satisfied with the said statement, believing the

Corporate Debtor that he will honour his words, allowed the withdrawal

of petition and as such the following order was passed:

"ORDER

1. Ld. Counsel on both sides present.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that

the total amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- has been agreed to be

paid in instalments. Let the settlement agreement be taken on

record. In view of the above statements, Ld. Counsel

appearing for the Financial Creditor seeks permission to

withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. C.P. is

disposed of as withdrawn.

3. File be consigned to the records."

6. The case set up by the appellant is that there was default in the

payment of the instalment by the respondent, therefore, the appellant

filed RST.A (IBC)/17(KB) 2023 before the Tribunal in which the following

prayers were made:

"a) Company Petition Number being C.P. (I.B) No.

1066/KB/2019 be revived and restored to its original file

and number against the Corporate Debtor in view of the

settlement having being failed;

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -6-

b) Adjudicate and dispose off the pending C.P. (I.B) No.

1066/KB/2019 against the Corporate Debtor;

c) Such other order or orders be passed and/or direction or

directions be given as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit

and proper;"

7. In the application for restoration notice was issued and reply was

filed by the respondent. Ld. Tribunal dismissed the application on the

ground that the main petition i.e. C.P. (IB) No. 1066/KB/2019 was

withdrawn without obtaining liberty to get it revived in case of any

breach. The relevant part of the impugned order read as under:

"In as much as no liberty was sought for on 08.06.2022 and

the CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019 was dismissed as withdrawn

without liberty to get it revived, in our considered opinion, the

prayer for restoration of CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019 is not

maintainable and hence not entertainable.

The CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019 was dismissed as withdrawn

recording settlement between the parties. No liberty was

granted by this Tribunal to revive the CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019

in case the Corporate Debtor fails to acknowledge the terms

of settlement or fails to pay in terms of the settlement."

8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid impugned order, the present appeal

has been filed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -7-

9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently

argued that the Tribunal has committed a patent error of law in

dismissing the application on the pretext that at the time when the main

petition was withdrawn, in terms of the order dated 08.06.2022, the

appellant did not seek liberty to file application for its revival. Ld. Senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in the

settlement agreement, taken on record by the Tribunal, there is a

condition that in case of breach by the Corporate Debtor of the terms

and conditions of the settlement, the appellant shall have an automatic

right to revive the main petition. In this regard, he has relied upon two

decisions of this Court in the case of "Pooja Finlease Ltd. v. Auto Needs

(India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 103 of 2022

decided on 18.07.2022 and IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal

Lifestyle Ltd. [2023 SCC Online NCLAT 225].

10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, while vehemently

opposing the present appeal, has submitted that there is no error in the

impugned order which may call for any interference by this court. He has

submitted that though the settlement agreement was taken on record

but there was no application filed by the appellant with a prayer that in

case of breach of any part of the settlement much less the payment of

amount as agreed, the appellant shall be at liberty to seek revival nor

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -8-

any such liberty was granted by the Tribunal. In support of his

submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of

"SRLK Enterprises LLP v. JALAN Transolutions (India) Ltd. in Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 294 of 2021 decided on 08.04.2021. He has also

relied upon a division bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

in the case of "Mohd. Amin v. Mohd. Iqbal [2009 SCC Online Del 861:

(2009) 158 DLT 531].

11. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the present

application filed under Section 7 by the appellant cannot proceed

because there is an another case filed under Section 7 by "Oarsman

Credit private Limited Vs. Ideal Real Estates Private Limited" bearing

CP (IB) No. 127/KB/2023 which was admitted on 05.04.2024. It is

further submitted that the order dated 05.04.2024 was taken in appeal

by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor bearing Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 696 of 2024 in which stay was granted on

09.04.2024 to the effect that "In the meantime, the order dated 06.04.2024

shall remain stayed." The said appeal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 696

of 2024 has been disposed of on 18.12.2024 relegating the parties

therein, to file an appropriate application on the basis of settlement

arrived at between them, before the Tribunal in view of the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Glas Trust Company LLC vs. Byju

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -9-

Raveendran & Ors. [2024 SCC Online SC 3032 in Civil Appeal No. 9986 of

2024]" but the order of stay has been ordered to be continued which means

that the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor still exists and in this regard

he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Ashok Kumar

Tyagi v. UCO Bank rendered in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1323 of 2022

decided on 21.11.2022. It is contended that there is a difference between

stay and quashing because while allowing the appeal by quashing the order

wipes out the order but while staying the operation of the order against

which the appeal has been filed the order still survives. He has therefore

submitted that the application under Section 7 having been filed against the

same Corporate Debtor is not maintainable.

12. In reply to this argument counsel for the appellant has submitted that

at this stage the appellant is not pressing the application under Section 7

rather the appeal is against the order by which he has been nonsuited to

enter into the court on the ground that at the time when the main petition,

filed under Section 7 was withdrawn on the basis of settlement agreement,

he did not take permission of the court for its revival in case of breach of

terms and conditions of the settlement. It is further submitted that the

arguments raised by counsel for the respondent may be of any use to him

only when this appeal is allowed and Section 7 application is restored to its

original number.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -10-

13. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with

their able assistance.

14. Filing of the petition by appellant under Section 7 and the disposal of

the said petition by Tribunal on 08.06.2022 is not in dispute and that there

is a settlement agreement between the parties dated 07.06.2022. It is also

not in dispute that the appellant, but for the settlement agreement, would

not have withdrawn the application filed under Section 7. It is also a fact

that the settlement agreement was taken on record. It is also not in dispute

that at the time when the settlement agreement was taken on record there

was no objection raised by the respondent that the settlement agreement

cannot be taken on record in court rather the appellant should have filed an

application in this regard. The only thing missing is that the Tribunal, while

taking on record the settlement agreement and recorded the statement that

the parties have settled their dispute at Rs.1,92,88,886/- and respondent

has agreed to be pay did not record that the appellant can get the main

case revived in case respondent do not honour its commitment in terms

of settlement agreement.

15. This is not the first case before this court in which such type of

situation has arisen where a dishonest Corporate Debtor has raised all

sorts of pleas to seek dismissal of the application filed by the appellant.

In the case of Pooja Finlease Ltd. v. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

(supra) the same situation had arisen and this court had allowed the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -11-

appeal and set aside the impugned order. The relevant paragraphs of the

said order are as under:

"4. The case of the Appellant is that there is default committed by

the Corporate Debtor, consequently, he filed application seeking

revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is terms of

Clause 8 of the Consent Terms, which application has been rejected

by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel for the Appellant

submits that when Clause 8 of the Consent Terms contemplate

revival of CIRP in the event of any default of the terms of the

Consent Terms on the part of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating

Authority ought to have revived the Section 7 petition and

Adjudicating Authority has committed error in rejecting the revival

application.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there was no

liberty granted in the order dated 05.02.2020 to revive CIRP, hence,

the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application for

revival. He has also referred to judgment of this Tribunal in 'Krishna

Garg and Anr. vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.' which has also

been relied by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 7 of the impugned

order.

6. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

7. The Consent Terms in Clause 8 as has been extracted above

clearly entitle the Financial Creditor to revive the Section 7 petition

in event any default of the terms of the Consent Terms. Further, the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -12-

order dated 05.02.2020 cannot be read as an order by which

Consent Terms has not been taken on record when by the said

order application filed alongwith the consent terms under Rule 11 of

NCLT rules, 2016 was taken on record and was allowed. When the

application was allowed in terms of the consent terms, Clause 8

itself shall be treated to be part of the order which shall entitle the

Financial Creditor to revive the petition in the event of any default.

8. Judgment of this Tribunal which has been relied by the

Respondent in 'Krishna Garg and Anr. vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt.

Ltd.' was a case where neither settlement terms were filed nor the

same were brought on the record. The facts in the present case are

distinguishable from the above case as Consent Terms were filed

and also were taken on record by the Adjudicating Authority. When

the Adjudicating Authority allowed the application filed, the

Consent Terms were also taken record and the Financial Creditor

was fully entitled to seek revival of the Section 7 petition in event of

default of consent terms.

9. We, thus, allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned order

dated 10.11.2021 and revive the Section 7 petition i.e. C.P. (IB) No.

2340 of 2019 which may be heard by the Adjudicating Authority in

accordance with law."

16. Similarly, in the case of IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal

Lifestyle Ltd. (supra) this court had noticed that separate consent terms

were executed between the parties and the said consent terms were

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -13-

brought on record and while allowing the appeal, this Court passed the

order as follows:

"17. The adjudicating Authority while rejecting the revival

application as noted above observed that the settlement was

arrived in between the parties outside the Tribunal. In the

present case, the Settlement was arrived and submitted

before the Adjudicating Authority which was noticed in the

Order dated 09.02.2022 hence the Judgment of SRLK

Enterprises LLP is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the

present case. In paragraph 6 of the Judgment, following has

been observed:

"6. Going through the Impugned Order dated 26th

February, 2021 which seeks to recall the Order dated

09th May, 2019 which also we have seen, we find it

difficult to take a different view from the Adjudicating

Authority. There is difference between withdrawal

simplicitor making statement that parties have settled.

It is different when bringing the settlement on record,

and making it a part of the Order of withdrawal liberty

is taken and brought on record to restore the

proceedings in case of default. IBC is not a recovery

proceeding where because the money or part of it has

not come, the party may repeatedly come to the Court.

Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that no

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -14-

liberty to revive was there and so declined to interfere.

The Appellant would be at liberty to pursue other

remedies in law"

18. What has been observed in paragraph 6 itself makes a

clear distinction between withdrawal simplicitor making

statement that parties have settled and bringing on record

settlement. This Tribunal itself has recognized two separate

categories. Present case falls in the category where settlement

has been brought on record. Thus, Judgment of this Tribunal

in SRLK Enterprises LLP does not help the Respondent.

19. We thus in the facts of the present case are of the view

that. Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the

revival application 3196 of 2022 when the consent term itself

contemplates a clause for revival in event of default and

default having been committed by the Corporate Debtor,

rejection of revival is to deny the Financial Creditor rightful

remedy. Nan-mention of specific liberty in the Order is

inconsequential in view of the clear terms in the settlement

which was the basis of withdrawal of Company Petition.

20. We thus are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority

committed error in rejecting I.A. No. 3196 of 2022. Sufficient

cause has been made out for allowing this Appeal and setting

aside the Order dated 21.12.2022. Consequently, I.A. No.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -15-

3196 of 2022 is allowed and the C.P. (IB) No. 4412(MB)/2019

is revived before the Adjudicating Authority to proceed in

accordance with law."

17. There is a another case of this Court though cited by counsel for

the respondent i.e. "Desh Bhushan Jain, Erstwhile Director of Angel

Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhay Kumar, IRP of Angel Promoters Pvt. Ltd. &

Ors." in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.124 of 2024 decided on

20.05.2024 in which the issue was that the application under Section 7

was withdrawn on the ground of settlement between the parties and then

a fresh application was filed on the basis of settlement amount agreed in

the settlement agreement. The objection was raised that the application

under Section 7 cannot be filed on the basis of the amount settled in the

settlement agreement. In this regard, this Court has observed as under:

"19. We are not at all impressed with the argument of the

Appellant which has been raised with the support of the

decision in the case of Raj Singh Gehlot (Supra) that the

application under Section 7 cannot be filed on the basis of the

settlement because the said judgment is not applicable. In the

case of Raj Singh Gehlot (Supra) the petition under Section 7

was filed on the basis I of settlement agreement dated

07.04.2017 whereas in the present case, the first petition was

not filed on the basis of settlement agreement rather it was filed

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -16-

on the basis of the debt due and default committed by the CD.

The debt and default was admitted by the Corporate Debtor

and hence, approached the Financial Creditors for entering into

a settlement to make the payment in instalments through post-

dated cheques both in regard to the principal as well as interest

component. The Financial Creditors believed the Corporate

Debtor and entered into the agreement and further on the

asking of the CD filed a joint application in the first petition not

only to bring on record the settlement but also to withdraw the

first petition being sanguine of the fact that CD would keep its

words and shall honour all the post-dated cheques in time but

they were not aware of the intention of the CD as it had not

made payment beyond Rs. 1,10,00,000 and were still in the

arrears of more than Rs. 3 Cr. The Financial Creditor then filed

the second petition of the reduced debt about which the default

is not in question, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has

rightly admitted the application.

20. At this stage, we would like to observe that if this kind of

tricks, played by the CD with the FC are allowed and the plea

raised by the Appellant is accepted that the second petition on

the ground of settlement agreement is not maintainable then it

would give a premium to the unscrupulous CD to get the petition

filed under Section 7 withdrawn on the basis of the settlement

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -17-

which was not to be ultimately followed., Definitely, this kind of

attitude and act on the part of the CD is not appreciated.

21. In so far as the issue raised by the Appellant about the

amount of Rs. 87 Lac. which has been paid out of the court

during the pendency of this appeal to be adjusted in the amount

which is stated to be due is concerned, suffice it to say that the

Appellant has not brought on record any writing/ agreement in

this regard that the said amount has been paid towards the

adjustment of the principal amount otherwise the Financial

Creditor is entitled to adjust the amount towards the payment

of interest component at the first instance.

22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we

do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is

hereby dismissed. The amount deposited by the Appellant in

this court by way of FDR is ordered to be returned to the

Appellant within a period of one month from the date of passing

of this order by the Registrar after due verification."

18. The argument of the respondent is that in both the cases, namely,

Pooja Finlease Ltd. v. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) and

IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (supra), an

application was filed before the Court to bring on record the settlement

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -18-

deed which is conspicuous by its absence in the present case. Therefore,

the said agreement cannot be looked into.

19. In our considered opinion the argument raised is totally

unwarranted because the respondent has not denied that there was no

settlement between the parties. The respondent did not raise any

objection before the Tribunal when the settlement was produced before

the Tribunal and taken on record by the Tribunal, that it should have

been brought on record through a proper application. Though this

objection is raised before this court for the sake of objection otherwise

there is no merit in this objection. In our considered opinion, the

respondent is a dis-honest person who has entered into settlement with

the appellant at that time when Section 7 application was filed because

he knew that if Section 7 application is pushed into CIRP then he would

face numerous other Financial Creditor once the CoC is constituted. In

order to avoid that situation to happen, he persuaded and misled the

appellant that we will make the entire payment in instalments. It was the

magnanimity of the appellant to have entered into the settlement with

such a dis-honest person at that time otherwise had it aware about his

intentions that he is not likely to honour his commitment, it would not

have entered into settlement to face this kind of unnecessary litigation to

spend huge money.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -19-

20. The Judgment relied upon by the respondent in the case of SRLK

Enterprises LLP v. JALAN Transolutions (India) Ltd. (supra) is also of no

consequence because this Judgment has already been discussed in the

earlier decision of this court in the case of IDBI Trausteeship Services

Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (supra).

21. The Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court 'Mohd. Amin v. Mohd.

Iqbal' (supra), relied upon by the Respondent is also not applicable to the

facts of this case because that was a case regarding interpretation of

Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and in that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has

held that:

"We find that the basis of the compromise application is the

Agreement dated 25.2.1991. The compromise, thus, envisages

in Clause 11 that the Agreement between the parties that the

suit would be withdrawn. Thus, the parties were conscious of

the fact that having entered into the compromise, no decree

was to be prayed before the Court, but the suit was to be

withdrawn. The application filed by the parties, though EFA

(OS) No. 15 of 2008 Page No. 8 of 10 under Order 23 Rule 3 of

the CPC, prayed for recording of the compromise between the

parties and disposal of the suit. The object of the parties was

clear that they wanted to place on record the compromise

arrived at between the parties, but did not seek to obtain a

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -20-

decree in terms of the compromise, which would be executable,

It is in these circumstances that the suit has been dismissed

as withdrawn, though the parties were to be bound by the

terms of the compromise."

22. Lastly, the issue raised by the respondent about the maintainability

of this appeal in the wake of pendency of the proceedings in the case of

'Oarsman Credit private Limited Vs. Ideal Real Estates Private Limited

(supra), it is suffice to hold that this is not the stage where the Judgment

relied upon by the respondent in the case of Ashok Kumar Tyagi v. UCO

Bank (supra) can be pressed. The respondent may be having a right to raise

this issue of maintainability of the second application under Section 7

against the same Corporate Debtor but it can be raised only when the

application under Section 7 is restored which is not the stage in present

case.

23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find merit

in present appeal, therefore, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned

order is set aside. Before parting with this order, we may record our

disappointment and anguish in the manner in which these type of cases are

pouring in. The respondent in this case had mislead the appellant to enter

into a settlement, to which he agreed, probably believing the respondent

that he would honour his commitments and pay the amount as agreed in

instalments. But at that time it was totally unaware of the intentions of

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -21-

the respondent that he will not, ultimately honour his commitment and

force the appellant to pursue this kind of litigation.

24. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the

time has come when this court should strictly deal with this kind of

unscrupulous and dis-honest Corporate Debtor, by imposing heavy cost,

for the unnecessary litigation in which the appellant has been pushed by

the respondent/Corporate Debtor, therefore, we impose a cost of

Rs. 2 lakhs which shall be paid by the respondent by way of Bank Draft

to the appellant within one month from the date of passing of this order.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

sa/rr

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024