Savinder Singh vs Alloysmin Industries & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 497 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal may set aside an admission order under Section 9 of the I&B Code, and permit the operational creditor to withdraw its application, where the parties have settled the dispute, the committee of creditors has not been constituted, and no claims have been received from any creditor other than the applicant, which together justify closing the insolvency proceedings in a small-scale corporate debtor. Upon such withdrawal, the moratorium, the appointment of the interim resolution professional, and all orders and actions taken pursuant to the admission order fall with it and are set aside, and the corporate debtor is released to function through its board of directors.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
07.05.2019 'Alloysmin Industries' (Operational Creditor) filed an
application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for
short, the 'I&B Code') against 'Raman Casting (P) Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) for
initiation of 'corporate insolvency resolution process' which was subsequently,
rejected by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New
Delhi Bench on 17th September, 2018. 'Alloysmin Industires' (Operational
Creditor) had preferred the appeal wherein this Appellate Tribunal in 'Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 684 of 2018' by order dated 21st January, 2019
allowed the case and set aside the impugned order dated 17th September, 2018
and the case was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to admit the application
under Section 9 of the I&B Code without going into other issues, in view of
deemed service on the 'Corporate Debtor' but ordered to issue fresh notice to 2
enable the parties to settle the matter. After such remand, the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-III admitted the
case on 10th April, 2019 in absence of any settlement, which is under challenge
in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 'Terms of
Settlement' were reached between the parties on 29th April, 2019 and the amount
in 'Terms of the Settlement' has already been paid. It was also submitted that
the 'Committee of Creditors' have not been constituted.
2. Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
'Operational Creditor' accepted that the matter has been settled in terms of the
'Settlement Agreement'. Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Interim Resolution Professional has
appeared in person. He also informs that the 'Committee of Creditors' has not
been constituted and the claims are not received till date. He further informs
that his fee is Rs. 1 Lakh and he has incurred expenditure of Rs. 20,000/-
towards publication of notice etc.
3. Taking into consideration the fact that the 'Corporate Debtor' is a small
scale industry and the parties have reached settlement; the 'Committee of
Creditors' have not been constituted and till date no claim has been received
except the 'Operational Creditor' (Respondent before us), who also has not filed
a claim, in view of the settlement; we set aside the impugned order dated 10th
April, 2019 and allow the respondent 'Operational Creditor' to withdraw the
application under Section 9 of the I&B Code. The Adjudicating Authority will
close the proceedings.
4. So far as the fee and resolution cost of the 'Interim Resolution Professional'
is concerned, the Corporate Debtor will pay a sum or Rs. 1,20,000/- in his favour
within three weeks.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 497 of 2019 3
5. In effect, order (s) passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority appointing 'Interim
Resolution Professional', declaring moratorium and all other order (s) passed by
Adjudicating Authority pursuant to impugned order and action taken by the
'Resolution Professional' are set aside. The application preferred by the
Respondent under Section 9 of the I&B Code is disposed of as withdrawn. The
Adjudicating Authority will now close the proceeding. The Respondent Company
is released from all the rigour of law and is allowed to function independently
through its Board of Directors from immediate effect.
6. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. No
costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 497 of 2019
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