M/S Gd Chemicals Through Its Partner Mr. ... vs Indo Laminates Private Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal4 April 2025Ashok Bhushan

CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 401 of 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A Section 9 application that has been closed on the basis of a settlement between the parties cannot be revived at the instance of the operational creditor after a lapse of about five years; where the settlement is not honoured, the operational creditor is expected to seek revival promptly, and an unexplained delay of that length justifies refusing restoration. Section 9 proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are not a mechanism for recovery of the debt, and the existence of a claim outside those proceedings does not revive the insolvency process itself, so the appellant's liberty to pursue other remedies for the debt does not affect the refusal of restoration.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 401 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: GD Chemicals Through Its Partner Mr. Deepak Gupta ...Appellant Versus Indo Laminates Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates.

For Respondent :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.04.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 03.01.2025 by which

adjudicating authority rejected the Restoration Application 52/2024 filed by

the appellant to revive Section 9 application.

3. Section 9 application filed by the appellant, an operational creditor

which was terminated on 07.06.2019 on account of settlement between the

parties. Appellant filed an application after 5 years of closure seeking a

revival. Adjudicating authority rejected the application observing that revival

has been sought after 5 years of settlement when the CIRP is to complete

maximum within 330 days. Adjudicating authority refuse to revive the CIRP

and rejected application.

4. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that there were

certain payments made in between by the corporate debtor and appellant in

the hope that debt will be cleared, waited for some more time.

5. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the appellant and

perused the record.

6. The CIRP having been closed on 07.06.2019 and the application for

revival was filed after 5 years as noted by the adjudicating authority. In event,

settlement was not honoured by the corporate debtor, it was open for the

operational creditor to immediately come to the Court seeking a revival. The

revival after 5 years has rightly been refused. Section 9 proceedings are not

proceeding for recovery of the amount.

7. We, thus do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority

rejecting restoration application.

Appeal dismissed.

However, it shall be open for the appellant to take such other remedies

as available in law with regard to debt, if any.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 401 of 2025 2 of 2

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