AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
28.02.2023: On 21.02.2023, Ld. Counsel for both the parties requested for granting time for filing appropriate affidavit, in view of the fact that during pendency of the appeal dispute in between the parties had already been settled amicably. However, Ms. Manisha Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that for just decision in the matter it was necessary to allow her to file impleadment application. Prayer for filing impleadment application was allowed on 21.02.2023.
In view of earlier order an intervention application vide I.A. No. 791 of 2023 has been filed with a prayer to implead Mr. Sanjay Kumar, presently Managing Director and Shareholder of the IGL as one of the Appellant. On the question of impleadment, Mr. Ajay Paul, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Deepayan Mandal, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2, Company in question have got no objection; rather a submission was made that to avoid any further complication it would be appropriate to allow the present impleadment application. In view of submission made by Ld. Counsel for the parties there is no reason not to allow the intervention application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 791 of 2023 is allowed. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is permitted to implead Mr. Sanjay Kumar as Appellant No. 2 in course of day.
Similarly, a joint application has been filed enclosing there with settlement agreement dated 17.02.2023 as Annexure-A2 which is at running page 36 to 43. Since, the parties had already settled the dispute there is no reason to keep the appeal pending. In terms of clause no. 3 of the agreement, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has handed over a demand draft of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Only) i.e. the settlement amount to Mr. Ajay Paul, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, in terms of the agreement as well as the fact that the settlement amount has already been paid before this tribunal there is no reason to keep the appeal pending. The appeal stands disposed of.
The present appeal was filed under Section 61 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as ‘IBC’) against an order dated 16.09.2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (herein after referred to as ‘NCLT’) whereby petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein under Section 9 was admitted and CIRP was initiated. However, in view of a peculiar facts and circumstances on appeal being filed, a Bench of this Tribunal by its order dated 20.09.2021 has directed for a stay of operation of the impugned order till the next date of hearing which stay order is still continuing.
Normally, we may refrain from examining the question of settlement in such proceeding but in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the stay order is in operation since 20.09.2021 and the Operational Creditor in view of settlement does not intent to further proceed with the CIRP, it is appropriate to pass an order for setting aside the impugned order whereby application filed under Section 9 of the IBC was admitted. The appeal accordingly is allowed particularly in terms of the settlement in between the parties. This order has been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and may not be treated as precedent.