Shatrughan Sahu vs Bakelite Hylam Ltd & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 735 of 2022
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