Ashish Garodia vs Impact Event Management & Anr

Mr. Ashish Garodia ...Appellant

Vs.

Impact Event Management & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Ankit Rajgarhia, Ms. Bonita Singh, Mr. Anandh Venkatramani and Mr. Samerjit Patnayak, Advocates.

For Respondents: - Mr. R.A. Iyer, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

08.02.2019─ This appeal has been preferred by Mr. Ashish Garodia,

Director and Shareholder of 'M/s. Garodia Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.'-

('Corporate Debtor') against the order dated 14th January, 2019 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata

Bench, Kolkata, admitting the application under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) preferred

by the Respondent- 'Impact Event Management'- ('Operational Creditor').

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to letter dated 6th

December, 2016 (Pages 87-88) to show that there is a 'pre-existence of

dispute'. Therefore, according to him, application under Section 9 was

not maintainable.

Contd/-..........

-2-

3. Today, it is intimated that the parties have also settled the claim.

Mr. R.A. Iyer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 'Operational

Creditor' accepts that the parties have settled the matter. This apart, the

Respondents have also not disputed the fact that pursuant to the notice

issued by the 'Operational Creditor', the 'Corporate Debtor' by letter dated

28th December, 2016 intimated that the 'Operational Creditor' has no

dues from the 'Corporate Debtor' as the 'Operational Creditor' failed to

perform the promotional services successfully, therefore, the 'Corporate

Debtor' ordered to stop payment.

4. In spite of service of notice, the 'Interim Resolution Professional'

has not appeared but it is informed that the 'Committee of Creditors' has

been constituted on 5th February, 2019, i.e. after issuance of the notice

to the parties.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the fact that there is a 'pre-existence of dispute', we hold

that that the application under Section 9 was not maintainable. Further,

before the constitution of the 'Committee of Creditors', the parties having

settled the matter. It is a fit case to accept the settlement. For the reasons

aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 14th January, 2019.

I.A. No. 291 of 2019

IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 67 of 2019 -3-

6. In effect, order (s), passed by the Adjudicating Authority appointing

any 'Interim Resolution Professional', declaring moratorium, freezing of

Bank accounts, and all other order (s) passed by the Adjudicating

Authority pursuant to impugned order and action, if any, taken by the

'Interim Resolution Professional', including the advertisement published

in the newspaper calling for applications and all other orders and actions

taken are declared illegal and are set aside. The application preferred by

Respondent under Section 9 of the 'I&B Code' is dismissed. Learned

Adjudicating Authority will now close the proceeding. The 'Corporate

Debtor' (company) is released from all the rigour of law and is allowed to

function independently through its Board of Directors from immediate

effect.

7. The Adjudicating Authority will fix the fee of 'Interim Resolution

Professional', and the 'Corporate Debtor' will pay the fees of the 'Interim

Resolution Professional', for the period he has functioned. The appeal

is allowed and Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of with

aforesaid observation. However, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, there shall be no order as to cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk

I.A. No. 291 of 2019 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 67 of 2019