Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shatrughan Sahu vs Bakelite Hylam Ltd & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal6 January 2023

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal is allowed and the admission order set aside on the strength of a settlement between the parties reached during the appeal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which, once the dues are returned, permits the moratorium imposed on admission to be lifted; the Tribunal treats the settlement as the ground for disposal, and the question of the Interim Resolution Professional's remuneration and expenses is resolved by directing him to retain Rs. 1 lakh of the Rs. 2 lakh deposit and refund the balance to the Operational Creditor.

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) (Ins.) No. 735 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Shatrughan Sahu ...Appellant

Versus

Bakelite Hylam Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Adv. Shwetank Singh. For Respondent: Adv. Ms. Purti Gupta for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Hari Babu Sharma, IRP

ORDER

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain:

06.01.2023: This appeal is directed against the order dated

23.06.2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal, Jaipur Bench), by which an application filed under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') by the Respondent

(Operational Creditor) r/w Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (in short 'Rules) for the

resolution of the principal amount of Rs. 6,07,459/-with interest has been

admitted. Shri Hari Babu Sharma, named as an IRP was so appointed and

the Operational Creditor was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs with

him for the purpose of necessary expenses.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties to the lis have entered

into a settlement in terms of Section 12A of the Code. Thus, in view thereof,

the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set

aside.

3. However, some dues of the IRP were required to be settled and in this

regard, Hari Babu Sharma (IRP) has appeared today and submitted the

statement of receipts and expenses, which is taken on record. According to

him, the total amount comes to Rs. 25,000/-. In so far as, his professional fee

is concerned, the Applicant has submitted that it may be treated as Rs.

75,000/- as a whole and a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be retained by the

IRP who may further be directed to return the remaining amount of Rs.

1,00,000/- out of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Operational Creditor.

4. We have heard Counsel for the parties and after examining the available

records are of the considered opinion that this appeal has been filed against

the admission order in which on the commencement of CIRP, Hari Babu

Sharma (IRP) was appointed and moratorium was imposed, the appeal is

hereby allowed in view of the fact that the matter has been settled (amount

due has been returned by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor)

and as a consequence, moratorium imposed vide the order of admission is

hereby lifted. Shir Hari Babu Sharma (IRP) shall retain the amount of Rs. 1

Lakh out of Rs. 2 Lakhs deposited by the Operational Creditor with him

towards expenses and shall refund/return Rs. 1 Lakhs to the Operational

Creditor by way of a bank draft within 15 days from the date of passing of this

order.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu

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