Gajender Sharma vs Dinesh Sanitary Store & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) No. 119 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a corporate debtor and an operational creditor have settled their dispute after a Section 9 application has been admitted but before a Committee of Creditors has been constituted, the Appellate Tribunal may, in exercise of its inherent power under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, set aside the admission order and dispose of the Section 9 application as withdrawn, where the settlement is shown to have been reached before the CoC's formation and is not defeated by the irregularity of the signatory's authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) No. 119 of 2020 IN THE MATTER OF: Gajendra Sharma S/o Sh. Sher Singh Sharma R/o H-`186, Sector-63, NOIDA (U.P) ...Appellant Vs 1. M/s Dinesh Sanitary Store Through its Partner, Mr. A.R. Ramesh Goesl, 160, Prakash Industrial Estate, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.- 201 005
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Insolvency Resolution Professional, J-6, Pocket 9/A, Jasola, New Delhi - 110 025 ....Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Mr. Ritesh Khare, Mr. Rahul Adlakha, Mr. Zeeshan Ali and Ms. Yashita Munjal, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Manish Jian, Ms. Soughata Ganguly, Ms. Anjali Jain, Advocates for Operational Creditor
Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, Mr. B.L. Sotya, and Mr. Rakehs Kumar Jain, Advocates for IRP.
Mr. Gursat Singh and Mr. Biswaksen Panda, Advocates for Prema Gupta(FC)
ORDER
03.02.2020 Heard learned Counsel for Appellant. It is stated that in this
matter the Impugned Order was passed on 04.01.2020 by which Application
under Section 9 filed by the 1st Respondent - Operational Creditor was admitted.
Learned Counsel states that the Appellant, taking up the case for the Corporate
Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 119 of 2020 Page 1 of 5 Debtor - Krishna Estate Developers Private Limited, filed this Appeal on
13.01.2020. Along with the Appeal, the Appellant filed Annexure-F (page-92) i.e.
Copy of Settlement Deed dated 10.01.2020 annexing copy of Bank Draft of Axis
Bank dated 10.01.2020 to show that Corporate Debtor has settled the dispute
with the Operational Creditor. Learned Counsel relies upon paragraph-52 of the
Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Swiss Ribbons Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors." - Writ Petition (C) No. 99 of 2018 which
reads as follows::
...
"52. It is clear that once the Code gets triggered by
admission of a creditor's petition under Sections 7 to 9, the
proceeding that is before the Adjudicating Authority, being
a collective proceeding, is a proceeding in rem. Being a
proceeding in rem, it is necessary that the body which is to
oversee the resolution process must be consulted before any
individual corporate debtor is allowed to settle its claim. A
question arises as to what is to happen before a committee
of creditors is constituted (as per the timelines that are
specified, a committee of creditors can be appointed at any
time within 30 days from the date of appointment of the
interim resolution professional). We make it clear that at any
stage where the committee of creditors is not yet constituted,
a party can approach the NCLT directly, which Tribunal
may, in exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the
NCLT Rules, 2016, allow or disallow an application for
Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 119 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 withdrawal or settlement. This will be decided after hearing
all the concerned parties and considering all relevant
factors on the facts of each case."
2. Learned Counsel further relies on judgment in the matter of "Girish
Agarwal Vs. M/s Lavis Signature Panel Pvt. Ltd." in Company Appeal(AT)
(Insolvency) No. 847 of 2019 passed by this Tribunal dated 13.09.2019 to submit
that in a similar situation, this Tribunal exercised powers under Rule 11 of
NCLAT Rules 2016 and set aside the Impugned Order. Learned Counsel states
that in view of this, the Impugned Order may be set aside and the Respondent-
Operational Creditor may be permitted to withdraw Application under Section 9
of IBC. Advocate Ms. Anjali Jain is present for the Respondent No. 1 and she
supported learned Counsel for the Appellant.
3. Learned Counsel for Interim Resolution Professional (in short 'IRP') is
pointing out that Committee of Creditors (in short 'CoC') was constituted on
21.01.2020. It is stated that he has received claim from one Financial Creditor,
Prema Gupta. It is also stated that if Settlement Deed is seen it is signed by
authorised signatory of the Corporate Debtor which could not have been signed
in using that status when already Application was admitted on 04.01.2020.
Learned Counsel for IRP is pointing out that the Draft which has been annexed
with the Settlement Deed was purchased by Krishna Nirman Developers which
is sister concern of the Corporate Debtor.
4. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
"Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.", it is apparent in
Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 119 of 2020 Page 3 of 5 the present matter that the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor had
entered into Settlement Deed before CoC was constituted. This is evident from
the Bank Draft which is dated 10th January,2020. On behalf of the Corporate
Debtor affected party entered into effort to settle with the Operational Creditor
and if the person used wrong status in the Settlement Deed, by that itself the
settlement need be defeated especially when the learned Counsel for Operational
Creditor is stating that the parties have entered into settlement on 10.01.2020
and had entered into such documents and Bank Draft.
5. Although the CoC got constituted on 21.01.2020, when the matter had
come up before this Tribunal on 23.01.2010, the fact of prior settlement was
brought to the notice of this Tribunal. It appears that Financial Creditor Prema
Gupta has filed Intervention Application and filed claim with the IRP. We are
disposing the present Appeal on the basis of the compromise referred. It will be
open to the Financial Creditor Prema Gupta to initiate proceedings of her own.
6. In view of the settlement reached before formation of CoC between the
parties, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule-11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016, we
set aside the Impugned Order dated 04.1.2020 whereby 'Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process' was initiated against Krishna Estate Developers Private
Limited (Corporate Debtor) and the Application under Section 9 IBC filed by M/s
Dinesh Sanitary Store stands disposed of as withdrawn.
7. In effect, order (s) passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority appointing 'Interim
Resolution Professional', declaring moratorium, freezing of account and all other
order (s) passed by Adjudicating Authority pursuant to impugned order and
Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 119 of 2020 Page 4 of 5 action taken by the 'Resolution Professional', including the advertisement
published in the newspaper calling for applications all such orders and actions
are declared illegal and 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 'Corporate Debtor' is
released from all the rigour of law and is allowed to function independently
through its Board of Directors. IRP/RP may place particulars of CIRP costs and
fees before Adjudicating Authority who will consider the same and direct
Corporate Debtor to pay the same, in time as may be specified. In default IRP/RP
may move this Tribunal to consider recalling present Orders.
The Appeal is disposed accordingly.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Akc/Md
Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 119 of 2020 Page 5 of 5
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