Kiran Udyog Private Limited vs Samyak Metals Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 288 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Section 9 application has been closed on the ground that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is already pending against the same corporate debtor, and that CIRP is subsequently closed on settlement, the Adjudicating Authority is not in error in reviving the closed Section 9 application, even though the operational creditor's modification application sought only liberty to revive; the subsequent closure of the pending CIRP removes the impediment to proceeding on the Section 9 petition, and the Tribunal will not interfere with an order that reaches the consequence the changed circumstances require.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 288 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Kiran Udyog Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus Samyak Metals Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant: Mr. Aadil Khan, Nainshree Goyal, Ekta Rai, Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Kinshul Chatterjee, Mr. Srishti Gupta, Advocates
ORDER
(Virtual Mode) 21.03.2022: Heard Mr. Aadil Khan, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.
Kinshul. Chatterjee, Advocate for the Respondent.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 03.03.2022 passed by
the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-
VI) in I.A. No/ 6010 OF 2021. By which Order, the Adjudicating Authority has
revived the Application CP(IB) No. 315/ND/2021. The Application was filed
under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred
as 'Code') by the Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor which
Application came for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority on 20th
December, 2021, the Adjudicating Authority noted that against the same
Corporate Debtor, a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP in short) has 2
already been initiated in I.B. 813/ND/2020 in the matter of M/s. Jaycee
Castalloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Kiran Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Noticing the aforesaid fact,
the Application filed under Section 9 of the Code was closed giving liberty to the
Petitioner to file their claims before the Insolvency Professional in the
proceedings. Subsequently, an Application was filed by the Operational Creditor
praying for modification of the Order dated 20th December, 2021 being I.A. No.
6010 of 2021 wherein following prayers were made by the Operational Creditor:
"a. Allow the present Application;
b. Pass necessary order modifying the Order dated 20.12.2021 in C.P.(IB) No. 315/2021 to the extent that liberty is granted to the Applicant/Operational Creditor to revive the petition bearing C.P. (IB) No. 315/2021 in the event any settlement is reached between the parties in the matter of C.P. (IB) No. 813/2020 or the Order dated 14.12.2021 passed in C.P. (IB) No. 813/2020 initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against Kiran Udyog Private Limited is set aside by the Appellate Authority.
c. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances."
3. The I.A. No. 6010 of 2021 came for consideration before the Adjudicating
Authority, CP(IB) No. 315/2021 which was revived by the Impugned Order.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order contends that the
Application of the Operational Creditor was only for modifying the Order dated
20th December, 2021 to the extent that liberty be granted to the Operational
Creditor to revive the Petition in the event any Settlement is reached between the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 288 of 2022 3
parties in CP (IB) No. 813/2020. It is submitted that there was no occasion for
reviving the CP(IB) No. 315/2021 where only modification was called for.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that when the Order was
passed on 03.03.2022, CP(IB) No. 813/2020 was already closed due to
settlement and there was no Insolvency Resolution Process pending against the
Corporate Debtor so as to inhabit the Adjudicating Authority not to initiate the
CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
6. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute between the parties that the Application under Section
9 filed by the Operational Creditor was closed on 20th December, 2021 on the
ground that CIRP of the Corporate Debtor has already been initiated in CP(IB)
No. 813/2020. After the aforesaid Order dated 20th December, 2021, the
Operational Creditor filed the I.A. No. 6010 of 2021 for modification of the Order
but till the time modification came to be considered by the Adjudicating
Authority, Adjudicating Authority was aware that CIRP in CP(IB) No. 813/2020
has already been closed hence there was no impediment in reviving the
Application. It is true that I.A. 6010/2021 only praying for liberty to revive but
on account of actual happening of settlement in CP(IB) No. 813/2020, no error
has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in reviving the CP(IB) No.
315/ND/2021.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 288 of 2022 4
We do not find any error in the Impugned Order, the Appeal is dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant is allowed further 10 days' time to file Reply
as was granted by the Adjudicating Authority.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 288 of 2022
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