Gaurav Pandey vs Eternity Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 714 of 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
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