AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[ORAL JUDGMENT: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]
By virtue of the impugned order under challenge, the Operational Creditor intends to seek to quash the order that was pronounced on 15.04.2026 by Ld. NCLT Division Bench-I, Chennai. By virtue of which the petition as preferred under Section 9 (5) of the I & B Code, 2016, was directed to be admitted.
In view of the finding, which has been recorded, few facts which could conveniently derived, i.e., liability, default, debt are the facts which stand admitted. They stand admitted because of the fact that, in terms of the agreement, the Petitioner/Operational Creditor, provided services to the Corporate Debtor, whereas the payment for such services had been in partial and piecemeal fashion.
However, apparently thereafter there had been a continued default, which made the petitioner send emails for ensuring the payment of installments. It has been remarked upon that there has been a settlement between the Petitioner and in lieu thereof, they have received Rs. 25 Lakhs on 03.07.2024, which was adjusted against the pending invoices, but thereafter, once again a default was committed which is an admission of dues vide email of 10.08.2024. This be the reason that the Petitioner issued a demand notice in the shape of Form 3 dated 20.11.2024, under Section 8 of the Code, raising a demand of Rs. 95,93,190/-(Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Only). The principal sum, along with the interest payable on it of Rs. 11,35,186/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand and One Hundred and Eighty Six Only), i.e., a total amount of Rs.1,07,28,376 (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy-Six Only). The Respondents, by their email of 26.11.2024, admitted the debt and provided the revised payment schedule.
The Ld. Tribunal observed that, the Suspended Director /Appellant herein wanted to settle their dues and has contacted an investor, who was willing to lend the money to meet the dues under the demand notice.
Owing to the aforesaid statement and while observing that despite of the response given to the demand notice, the Respondents proposed settlement to pay the amount in 10 installments, and there was a default thereto, the petition was filed, and the same has been allowed by the impugned order, admitting Section 9 application under the Code.
Today when the matter was taken up, the parties to the proceedings have placed before this Appellate Tribunal, a deed of settlement, which has been duly signed by both the parties, alleging thereof that they have settled their scores in terms of the conditions given in the settlement.
It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, in terms of Clause 4 of the settlement, an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- has already been paid on 18.04.2026, and the balance amount is to be remitted in accordance with the schedule given in para 4 of the settlement, and in lieu thereof, the advance cheques have already been issued.
Since the parties have entered into a settlement, which is acceptable by both the parties appearing before this Appellate Tribunal, the impugned order would stand modified to the extent, that the Appellant would settle the dues in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and if there is any dereliction or default in remittance of the amount due to be paid and settled as per Clause 4 of the settlement agreement, the impugned order under challenge, i.e., 15.04.2026 would revive back and take its own effect as per law.
Subject to the aforesaid, the 'company appeal' would stand 'disposed of'.