Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Gaurav Pandey vs Eternity Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal30 November 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a financial creditor's application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is admitted on a date when no default in payment subsists, because the parties had already reached a settlement before the admission, the Adjudicating Authority has no occasion to admit the application, and the admission order is liable to be set aside together with all consequential orders and actions taken under it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 714 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:Gaurav Pandey ...AppellantVersus

Eternity Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Virender Ganda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naman Joshi, Mr. Abhishek Chhabra, Mr. Gaurav Singh and Ms. Avshreya P.S. Rudy, Advocates

For 1st Respondent: Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, Advocate

For 2nd Respondent : Mr. Savar Mahajan, Advocate

ORDER

30.11.2018 On 16th November, 2018 when the matter was taken up, the

following order was passed :

"Apart from other issues raised in the appeal it

is contended by learned senior counsel representing

the Appellant (Corporate Debtor) that a settlement has

been reached between the parties and the factum of

the Corporate Debtor having worked out a settlement

with the Financial Creditor had been brought to the

notice of the learned Adjudicating Authority on the very

date of pronouncement of order of admission of the 2

application filed under Section 7 by the Respondent -

Financial Creditor, which declined to allow the

Respondent - Financial Creditor to withdraw the

application on the ground that the matter had been

fixed for pronouncement.

Issue Notice. Mr. Nitesh Shrivastava, Advocate

accepts notice on behalf of the 1st Respondent

(Financial Creditor). Mr. Savar Mahajan, Advocate

accepts notice on behalf of 2nd Respondent (IRP). No

further notice needs to be issued on Respondents.

Since the Respondent - Financial Creditor admits that

the settlement had been arrived at between the

Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor prior to

passing of impugned order of admission, the appeal be

posted 'for orders' on 30th November, 2018.

In the meanwhile, the Interim Resolution

Professional shall not take any further steps in regard

to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process."

Pursuant to notice, apart from contesting Respondent No. 1 the Resolution

Professional has also appeared.

The parties have brought on record the 'Settlement Deed' dated 1st

November, 2018. The Contesting Respondent (Financial Creditor) filed the

application under Section 7 of the I&B Code. From the 'Settlement Deed' filed it

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 714 of 2018 3

appears that e-stamp was purchased on 30th October, 2018 at 01:41 PM and the

settlement was reached on 1st November, 2018. Thus, it is clear that the parties

have reached for settlement much prior to the date of admission of application

on 13th November, 2018. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that there was no

default of payment on the part of the appellant as on 13th November, 2018 and

thereby no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh to admit the application under

Section 7. Learned counsel for the 'Resolution Professional' submits that in view

of the settlement, parties have also paid the fees and insolvency cost to the

'Resolution Professional'. He further submits that there is no more claim to be

paid by the parties.

For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 13th November,

2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Chandigarh in CP (IB) No.

197/Chd./HP/2018.

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

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 1st

Respondent under Section 7 of the I&B Code is dismissed. The Adjudicating

Authority will now close the proceeding. The 2nd Respondent Company is

released from all the rigour of law and is allowed to function independently

through its Board of Directors from immediate effect.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 714 of 2018 4

The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation and direction. 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)

/ns/uk/

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 714 of 2018

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