NCLAT Allows Appeal and Sets Aside Insolvency Admission After Full Deposit of Debt Amount. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Initiated for Debt of Rs.29,36,840/- Set Aside as Appellant Deposited Entire Amount and Parties Agreed to Settle.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI In Favour of Accused
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Inteco Melting and Casting Technologies GMBH against the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by Respondent No. 2 and 3 against Respondent No. 1 (Corporate Debtor) for a debt of Rs.29,36,840/-. At the preliminary hearing on 26.05.2022, the NCLAT directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount of Rs.29,36,840/- by way of demand draft, and subject to such deposit, the impugned order was stayed. The appellant complied with the deposit. Subsequently, on 06.11.2023, the appellant's counsel submitted instructions to settle the matter by paying the amount shown in the balance sheet of Rs.19,36,840/- to the respondent without prejudice to rights in other proceedings, and sought setting aside of the impugned order. The respondent's counsel, however, insisted on the full amount of Rs.29,36,840/-. On 05.07.2024, the appellant's counsel submitted that the entire amount of Rs.29,36,840/- had been deposited and the respondent was agreeable to receive the amount. The NCLAT noted that the entire debt amount had been deposited and the respondent was agreeable to receive it. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the Registry was directed to release the deposited amount of Rs.29,36,840/- to the respondent.

Headnote

A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Section 7 Application - Admission of Application - Settlement - Where the appellant deposited the entire debt amount of Rs.29,36,840/- and the parties agreed to settle, the impugned order admitting the Section 7 application was set aside and the appeal was allowed. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned order admitting the Section 7 application should be set aside when the appellant has deposited the entire debt amount and the parties have agreed to settle.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.05.2022 is set aside. The Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs.29,36,840/- deposited by the appellant to the respondent.

Law Points

  • Settlement of debt
  • withdrawal of Section 7 application
  • deposit of entire debt amount
  • setting aside admission order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (NCLAT) (01) 32

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 600 of 2022 & I.A. No. 1621, 1622, 1623 of 2022

2024-07-05

Mr. K. Datta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Parul Kashyap, Anuj P. Agarwala, Niharika Kashyap, Adv. for Appellant; Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, Mr. Saurabh Arora, Mr. Chandra Vardhan, Ms. Arohi Chandra, Adv. for Respondent

Inteco Melting and Casting Technologies GMBH

Inteco Special Melting Techonolgies (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order admitting Section 7 application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 admitting the Section 7 application

Filing Reason

The appellant challenged the admission of the Section 7 application filed by Respondent No. 2 and 3 against Respondent No. 1 for a debt of Rs.29,36,840/-

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 7 application on 20.05.2022; the NCLAT stayed the order on 26.05.2022 subject to deposit of the entire amount

Issues

Whether the impugned order admitting the Section 7 application should be set aside when the appellant has deposited the entire debt amount and the parties have agreed to settle.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant submitted that the entire amount of Rs.29,36,840/- has been deposited and the respondent is agreeable to receive the amount. Respondent's counsel submitted that the amount involved is Rs.29,36,840/- and the respondent is agreeable to receive the amount.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the entire debt amount has been deposited by the appellant and the respondent is agreeable to receive the amount, the impugned order admitting the Section 7 application is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.05.2022 by which an application filed under Section 7 of the Code by Respondent No. 2 and 3 against Respondent No. 1 for the resolution of their debt has been admitted. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.05.2022 is set aside. The Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs.29,36,840/- deposited by the appellant to the respondent.

Procedural History

The Adjudicating Authority admitted the Section 7 application on 20.05.2022. The appellant filed an appeal before NCLAT on 26.05.2022, which stayed the impugned order subject to deposit of the entire debt amount. The appellant deposited Rs.29,36,840/-. On 06.11.2023, the appellant offered to pay Rs.19,36,840/- as per balance sheet, but the respondent insisted on full amount. On 05.07.2024, the appellant confirmed deposit of full amount and respondent agreed to receive it. The NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Upholds Concurrent Findings of Readiness and Willingness. Plaintiff's Averments in Plaint Sufficient to Satisfy Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Doubt Over Cause of Death. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Medical Evidence Did Not Establish Hammer Blow as Cause of Death, and Eye Witness Testimony Was...