Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Sudhir Agarwal vs Chd Developers Ltd & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal15 February 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2021IN THE MATTER OF:

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