Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 09 NCLAT CK 0442

Amit Rajput vs M/s. Reckon Industries Limited & Anr.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 6 September 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 1991 & 1992 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 215-216 of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 302 words

O R D E R

[Per; Shreesha Merla, Member (T)]

1.

Comp. Apps. (AT) (Ins.) No. 215 & 216 of 2022 was dismissed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 04.07.2022, confirming the ‘Admission’ of the Section 7 Petition, filed by the Respondent/‘M/s. Reckon Industries Ltd.’.

2.

Subsequently, I.A. 1991-1992 of 2022 was filed by the Applicant/Appellant with a prayer that the Appellant is ready to pay the entire amount of Rs.3.5Crores/- by RTGS on the very next date i.e. 08.07.2022.

3.

Additionally, interest @ 13% p.a. was also offered which was accepted by the Respondent. It was recorded in the Order dated 07.07.2022 by this Tribunal that subject to payment of Rs.3.5Crores/- by the Applicant/Appellant by RTGS by 08.07.2022 no further steps would be taken in pursuance of the Order dated 04.07.2022.

4.

The matter was subsequently posted to 25.07.2022 for payment of interest @ 13% p.a. and for filing of Compliance Affidavit.

5.

Admittedly, the Appellant has received the entire principal amount of Rs.3.5Crores/- by RTGS and interest of Rs.1.05Crores/- calculated @ 13% p.a. from the date the Petition was filed. It is the case of the Respondent that the Appellant ought to have calculated interest from the date the money was actually disbursed. Without entering into this issue and keeping in view the recent developments whereby substantial amounts have been paid and also having regard to the fact that under IBC, which is not a recovery proceeding, the Respondent might not have even got these amounts, in the interest of justice, we find it a fit case to exercise our powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 and direct the Adjudicating Authority not to proceed with the Section 7 Application.

6.

For these reasons, the Application under Section 7 stands closed.

7.

The I.As. are disposed of accordingly.