Shristi Infrastructure Development ... vs Uco Bank
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1379 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's order rests on a procedural principle: where a corporate debtor has not filed its reply because a one-time settlement proposal made to the financial creditor is pending and under active consideration, and that fact is not disputed by the creditor, the Adjudicating Authority should not proceed to close the right of reply, and the corporate debtor may be granted a short period to file its reply if the settlement is not finalised within a fixed time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. UCO Bank ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Saptarshi Mandal, Advocates. For Respondent Mr. Partha Sil, Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Mr. Abhiraj Choudhary, Advocates.
ORDER
18.10.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.10.2023 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Kolkata
Bench, Kolkata by which order the right to file reply by the Corporate Debtor
has been closed and matter has been fixed for 07.11.2023.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has
already submitted an OTS proposal to the Bank and part payment in
pursuance of that OTS has also been made and Bank is actively considering
the OTS proposal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Bank also does not dispute that OTS proposal
is under consideration.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in view of the above,
the Appellant has not filed the Reply to await the outcome of the OTS. 2
6. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the OTS proposal which
is pending with the Bank may be finalized at an early date preferably within a
period of three weeks. If the Bank accept the OTS proposal then the Court may
be communicated of the said on the date fixed and in event, the OTS is not
finalized, we are of the view that the Appellant may be granted two weeks' time
to file a reply and thereafter the Adjudicating Authority may proceed further
in the matter.
7. With these observations, we dispose of the Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1379 of 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