Dharma Tej Kottu vs Ms. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari & Anr.

[ORAL JUDGMENT: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]

The Appellant, who happens to be the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Hamsa Dairy Private Limited, has questioned the impugned order as it was passed by the Ld. NCLT, which has consequentially resulted into Admission of Section 7 application, as against the Corporate Debtor. During the proceedings of the application, IA (IBC) 296/2025, the Appellant had contended that the application under Section 7 of the Code, is barred by limitation, and that the debt due is below the prescribed limit of the threshold as prescribed under Section 4 of the I & B Code.

The Ld. Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order, has ultimately observed that owing to the facts and evidence that has been brought on record, the aspect of limitation has been answered against the Appellant, along with the fact that, the aspect pertaining to whether there is an existence of a debt or default too, has been answered against the Appellant, and has accordingly directed commencement of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and appointment of IRP.

When, this company appeal was taken up by this Appellate Tribunal, notices were issued to the Respondent on 12.01.2026, who have put in appearance, when the proceedings revived before this Appellate Tribunal today. During the course of the proceedings on 28.01.2026, the Appellant came up with the case that he is agreeing to settle the amount which has fallen due to be paid to the Financial Creditor, that he has already repaid Rs. 1.48 Crores, and that he is offering a One-Time Settlement for an amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore, balance which he is ready to deposit by way of an OTS settlement.

Apart from that, he also undertook that he will be further depositing a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs forthwith by the next date, with an undertaking to deposit the balance amount by 20.03.2026. When the proceedings are taken up thereafter, the Appellant, had filed a memo on 26.03.2026 giving thereof the details of deposit, while making reference to the observation made by us in the previous orders passed by this Appellate Tribunal.

He submitted that in compliance to the interim order, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs on 28.01.2026 into the accounts of Respondent No. 2 with the following breakups:

After making the aforesaid deposits, the Appellant has submitted that he had approached Respondent No. 2 and by making reference to the aforesaid deposits that was made, which was also brought to the knowledge of the Ld. Tribunal by filing a memo to the said effect on 22.02.2026, in view of the undertaking taken by the Appellant on 28.01.2026, he has taken steps for depositing the balance amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- in two installments and in lieu thereof, he has deposited an INR of Rs. 1 crore on 18.03.2026 into the accounts of Respondent No. 2 by way of two demand drafts, i.e., DD No. 034442 dated 16.03.2026 for Rs. 25 Lakhs and DD No. 374092 dated 16.03.2026 for Rs. 75 Lakhs. Further, the balance of Rs. 45 lakhs were too deposited by the Appellant through DD No. 374101, dated 23.03.2026.

Thus, the Appellant contended that, as per the details of the demand drafts given in the memo filed by him, he has already remitted an amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore to Respondent No. 2, in compliance to the undertaking given by him before this Tribunal. When further proceedings was taken up before this Appellate Tribunal on 27.03.2026, the Appellant has submitted written submissions giving the details of the deposits as referred to herein above and submitted that, in accordance with the communication made by Respondent No. 2, to the Appellant, the outstanding amount with respect to the loan account, is Rs. 2,15,92,218 only and that since the Appellant has already deposited more than the balance amount, which was due to be paid, the matter may be laid to rest.

An objection was raised by the Respondent submitting that remittance of an amount of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- may not be taken to be satisfactory owing to the fact that certain CIRP professional fees, the RP expenses, and various other expenses pertaining to the withdrawal of the DRT OA are yet to be remitted. But the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant in the memo thus filed has submitted that all these amounts payable under the aforesaid heads, has been included by the Appellant in the Settlement offers made by him as would be apparent from the email communication dated 20.01.2026 and the entire CIRP cost and expenses incurred by the Respondent No. 2, too has been paid by the Appellant, when the aforesaid Rs. 2.25 crore was paid to the Respondent No. 2, in pursuance to the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal.

Owing to the statement made in the memorandum submitted by the Appellant in extension of his argument to the objection raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent did not have any valid grounds to oppose the contentions raised in the written submissions which were supported by records submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.

Owing to the settlement, which has been submitted by the Appellant vide its email communication of 20.01.2026 and, because of the fact that in compliance with the interim order passed by us on 28.01.2026, the entire amount has already been remitted, no amount is now standing due to be paid by the Appellant and as a consequence to the terms of the settlement referred to in the email communication, no controversy as such as of now survives to be adjudicated on merits in the company appeal.

The aforesaid aspect that the settlement has already been ventured into by the parties as would be apparent from the email communication of 20.01.2026 as annexed along with the memorandum which is not disputed, nothing much survives to be decided in the instant company appeal and because of the fact that all the conditions of remittance of the balance amount has already been met by the Appellant, the instant company appeal would stand allowed. The impugned order dated 07.11.2025 has passed in CP (IB)/22/7/AMR/2025, would stand quashed.

In terms of the settlement, which has been referred to by the Appellant in the memorandum supplied by him, the ‘company appeal’ stands ‘allowed’, and would stand disposed of in terms of the settlement, that has been arrived at between the parties, subject to above observations.