Ramesh Handa vs Canara Bank & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 545 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's reasoning rests on one principle: where the Adjudicating Authority has found debt and default and that finding is not challenged, nor any error pointed out in it, an appeal against the admission of a Section 7 application fails and is dismissed, while leaving the appellant free to bring any settlement before the Adjudicating Authority through the Section 12A route with the consent of the Committee of Creditors.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ramesh Handa ....Appellant Ex- Director of Saya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank & Anr. ...Respondents For Appellant Ms. Neha Raj Singh, Advocate. For Respondents Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Ranade, Ms. Nishi Bhankhawia, Ms. Jeta Shree, Advocates for R1- ICICI Bank Mr. PBA Srinivasan, Mr. Sumit Swami, Ms. Srishti Bansal, Advocates for R2 Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar, RP Ms. Pratiksha Bansal, Ms. Himanshu Mehta, Advocates for R2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
30.09.2024: This Appeal has been filed against the order dated
04.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal) Court-V, New Delhi Bench admitting Section 7 application.
2. In the Appeal, interim order was passed on 18.03.2023 on the ground
that the Appellant is endeavoring to settle the matter with the Bank. The Bank
has, in subsequent proceeding, recorded that no settlement has been entered.
The interim order was also vacated on 15.07.2024. When the matter was taken
up on 12.08.2024, Appellant sought for adjournment. On 17.09.2024,
following order was passed:-
2
"Learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks opportunity to make a statement for withdrawal of the Appeal.
As prayed, list this Appeal on 30th September, 2024."
3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is still engaging
with the Canara Bank for settlement and the meeting has been fixed between
the parties.
4. Be that as it may, in event, any settlement is entered between the
parties, it is always open for the Appellant to approach for 12A route for
bringing settlement with the consent of the CoC before the Adjudicating
Authority for closing the CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned
order having found debt and default which findings are not challenged and no
error is pointed out in the finding of debt and default, we, thus, are of the view
that the Appeal deserves to be dismissed with liberty to the Appellant to bring
settlement, if any, before the Adjudicating Authority through 12A route.
5. Subject to above, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 545 of 2024
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