Kunaparaju Sudharshan Varma vs M/s Rangrao Baburao Gaikwad & Ors.

The Appellant in the instant company appeal, who happens to be the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor (CD), M/s. Ind Barath Energies (Maharashtra) Limited, challenges the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, which has been passed by the Ld. NCLT Hyderabad Bench in CP (IB) No. 377 /9/HDB/2019 in M/s Rangarao Baburao Gaikwad Vs. M/s. Ind Barath Energies (Maharashtra) Limited.

In the said proceedings that were held under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the application preferred by the Respondent was admitted and the CIRP process was commenced against the Corporate Debtor by virtue of the impugned order.

This company appeal was taken up on 15.12.2025, where the statement was made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, that the parties have entered into a settlement and in relation thereto, a memorandum of settlement as well as an application being IA No. 1782/2025 have already been filed on record of the company appeal, thereby placing the terms of settlement dated 12.12.2025 on record. He has further stated that based upon the terms of the said settlement both the parties to the company appeal have unanimously settled their dispute and that the settlement deed has been endorsed by both the parties, laying down their consent to lay the controversy at rest.

Owing to the aforesaid, the settlement, which falls to be well within the ambit of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, is taken on record. The 'company appeal' would stand 'closed' in terms of the settlement deed dated 12.12.2025, which would constitute to be, the part of today's order.

The pending interlocutory applications would stand closed.