Sudhir Agarwal vs Chd Developers Ltd & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an operational creditor has accepted the amount offered under a settlement as full and final payment of its claim, and the Committee of Creditors has not yet been constituted and no claims have been received by the Interim Resolution Professional, the Appellate Tribunal may entertain the settlement without requiring the filing of formal consent terms and may set aside the admission order and direct release of the corporate debtor from the CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority being directed to close the case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sudhir Agarwal ....Appellant
Vs
CHD Developers Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Shivek Trehan, Ms. Freha Ahmad Khan and Mr. Pranay Mohan Govil, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. C. S. Gupta and Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Jatin Mongia, Advocate with Mr. Jaswant Singh, IRP for R-2.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
15.02.2021: I.A. No. 265 of 2021 is disposed of with direction to file certified
copy of the impugned order within two weeks of same being made available, if the
appeal survives for consideration.
2. I.A. No. 266 of 2021 stands disposed for with direction to produce legible
copies of the Annexures to appeal paper book within two weeks, in case, the appeal
survives for consideration.
3. The issue raised in this appeal against admission of application of
Respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Cont'd.../ -2-
(for short 'I&B Code') by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench Court I, vide impugned order dated 5th February,
2021 is that SLP was pending against dismissal of appeal in respect of Arbitral
Award before the Hon'ble Apex Court and that an Execution Petition was also
pending in respect of the Arbitral Award. Besides, the application was hit by
limitation.
4. Issue notice upon Respondents. Notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1 is
waived and accepted by Shri C. S. Gupta, Advocate. Notice on behalf of
Respondent No. 2 is waived and accepted by Shri Jatin Mongia, Advocate. Service
being complete, no further notice be served upon Respondents.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that the claim of the
Operational Creditor has been settled and the Settlement/Consent Terms have
been reduced to writing. Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks a brief
adjournment to file the Settlement/Consent Terms. Mr. C. S. Gupta, learned
counsel representing Respondent No. 1 (Operational Creditor) supports this
proposition of fact and submits that Respondent No. 1 has accepted the default
amount in terms of the Settlement and nothing remains outstanding. Mr. Gaurav
Mittal, Managing Director of the Operational Creditor (Respondent No.1) is also
present in person. He also confirms the factum of outstanding payment having
been received under the Settlement Terms with no claim pending against the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2021 -3-
Corporate Debtor. Mr. Jatin Mongia, Advocate representing the Interim
Resolution Professional (Respondent No. 2) informs us that though the Interim
Resolution Professional has been appointed, Committee of Creditors is yet to be
constituted. Interim Resolution Professional appearing in person also confirms
that the Committee of Creditors has not been constituted.
6. In view of this development, we are of the considered opinion that there is
no requirement of filing the Consent Terms as the Respondent No. 1 (Operational
Creditor) has accepted the amount offered in terms of the settlement arrived at as
full and final payment to satisfy its claim. Since Committee of Creditors is yet to
be constituted and no claims have been received by the Interim Resolution
Professional, there is no legal impediment in entertaining the settlement and
disposing off this appeal in terms thereof.
7. Shri Jatin Mongia, Advocate representing the Interim Resolution
Professional submits that CIRP costs and fee of the Interim Resolution
Professional has been paid and nothing remains outstanding on account of fee of
Interim Resolution Professional and CIRP costs.
8. We accordingly dispose off this appeal by setting aside the impugned order
dated 5th February, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and direct release
of the Corporate Debtor from rigour of law. The Adjudicating Authority is directed
to close the case.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2021 -4-
9. A copy of this order be sent to the Adjudicating Authority for information
and compliance.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2021
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