Dinesh Kishinchandgajria vs Kanan Graphics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 643 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal, exercising its inherent power under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, may set aside an order initiating corporate insolvency resolution process and permit the operational creditor to withdraw its application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where the parties have settled the debt before the Committee of Creditors has been constituted, and the settlement is accepted by the parties and the Resolution Professional on payment of the resolution costs and fees.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Dinesh Kishinchandgajria ...Appellant Versus
Kanan Graphics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present
For Appellant: Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Ms. Nishtha Kurana and Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Advocates
For Respondents: Mr. Kumar Sumit and Mr. Rajendra Beniwal, Advocates
ORDER
16.07.2019 This appeal has been preferred by Mr. Dinesh
Kishinchandagajria, Director of 'Print Plus Private Limited' against the order
dated 31st May, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company
Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench for initiating 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process' against 'Print Plus Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor).
The proceeding was initiated at the instance of an application preferred by
'Kanan Graphics Private Limited' (Operational Creditor) u/s 9 of the 'Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the I&B Code'). The Appellant took a
plea that there is a 'pre-existing dispute' but it was not noticed in absence of any
evidence.
On 19th June, 2019 when the matter was taken up, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Appellant while referring to the e-mails dated 30th
March, 2016 and 2nd March, 2016 to suggest that there is a 'pre-existing dispute' 2
relating to supply of the goods and it was also informed that in the meantime,
parties have settled the matter. Mr. Deepak Agarwal, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of 1st Respondent accepts that the parties have settled the matter and
50% of the payment has been received. It was also informed that the 'Committee
of Creditors' has also not yet been constituted as on 19th June, 2019.
In view of such submission, we issue notice to the 'Resolution
Professional'. Today it is informed that 50% payment was received by the 1st
Respondent and the rest 50% payment has been transferred on 12th July, 2019
in favour of the 1st Respondent. This is also accepted by the 1st Respondent.
Mr. Kumar Sumit, Advocate appears on behalf of the 'Resolution
Professional' and submits that the 'Resolution Professional' has worked for about
one month and one week and has incurred expenses of Rs. 99,000/- towards
'resolution cost'. He further submits that this apart, 'Resolution Professional' is
also entitled for his fee @ Rs. 2 Lakhs per month. However, on negotiations,
learned counsel for the 'Resolution Professional' agreed to accept the total Rs. 3
Lakhs towards resolution fee and cost. In view of the fact that the parties have
reached for settlement prior to the constitution of the 'Committee of Creditors'
and in exercising of inherent powers under Rule 11 of the National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, we allow the settlement and set aside the
impugned order dated 31st May, 2019 and allow the 1st Respondent to withdraw
the application u/s 9 of the I&B Code. The proceedings before the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai is closed.
The Adjudicating Authority will record its order sheet.
The Appellant and the 'Corporate Debtor' will jointly directed to pay a sum
of Rs. 3 Lakhs in favour of the 'Resolution Professional - Mr. Naren Sheth' within
Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 643 of 2019 3
3 weeks failing which it will be open to the 'Interim Resolution Professional' to
bring this to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal or for recall of this order.
In effect, order (s) passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority appointing 'Interim
Resolution Professional', declaring moratorium and all other order (s) passed by
Adjudicating Authority pursuant to impugned order and action taken by the
'Resolution Professional' are set aside. The application preferred by the
Respondent under Section 9 of the I&B Code is disposed of as withdrawn. The
Adjudicating Authority will now close the proceeding. The Respondent Company
is released from all the rigour of law and is allowed to function independently
through its Board of Directors from immediate effect.
The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. No
costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
ns/sk/
Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 643 of 2019
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