Maharashtra Bio Fertilisers India Pvt ... vs Innovative Tech Pack Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1279 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's order rests on the following reasoning, which is not an extended principle but is the basis on which it declined interference: where a corporate debtor has breached a consent term entered into in the course of a CIRP, and a restoration application is then filed on that ground, the Adjudicating Authority's order allowing revival of the CIRP does not warrant interference in appeal; and where the appellant has not filed a full reply, the corporate debtor is to be afforded a short further opportunity to file one, with the Adjudicating Authority to hear the application thereafter in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Maharashtra Bio Fertilizers (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Innovative Tech Pack Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Advocates For Respondent:
ORDER
27.09.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 17th August, 2023
passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Restoration Application No. 23 of 2022
being allowed reviving the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. In the
CIRP, a consent term dated 02nd April, 2022 was entered between the parties
in pursuance of which the Adjudicating Authority has permitted withdrawal
of the Application. Subsequently, the Operational Creditor filed the Application
for restoration on the ground that the default was committed by the Corporate
Debtor to the consent term dated 02nd April, 2022 hence the Application has
to be revived. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has come up in this Appeal. -2-
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that as per consent term the
Respondent Operational Creditor was required to issue notice before filing the
application for revival.
5. There is no dispute that Corporate Debtor has breached consent term
and in such event if the application is filed for restoration which has been
allowed, we see no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has not filed
any reply and filed only preliminary reply and he intends to file a detailed reply
also. We allow the Corporate Debtor three weeks' time to file a Reply, if any.
The Adjudicating Authority shall proceed to fix a date after three weeks and
proceed to hear the application in accordance with law.
The Appeal is disposed of, accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1279/2023
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