National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal for Withdrawal of CIRP Due to Non-Compliance with Statutory Procedure. Withdrawal Application Denied as it was not Filed through Resolution Professional and Lacked Required Approvals under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order dated 18.12.2024 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur, dismissing an application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against Shalfeyo Industries Private Limited by Prime Impex. The CIRP was initiated on 16.08.2022 due to a claim of approximately Rs. 11.90 lakhs. The Appellant, Deepak Modi, a suspended director, sought to withdraw the CIRP after settling the claims of the sole Financial Creditor, Axis Bank, and offering full payment to the Operational Creditor, Prime Impex. However, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application on grounds of non-compliance with the statutory procedure under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which required the application to be filed through the Resolution Professional and with the approval of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Appellant argued that the CIRP had reached a stalemate and that continued proceedings served no useful purpose. The Respondents contended that the CIRP was prolonged due to disputes and that the Appellant's claims were distorted. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the claims of all creditors had been settled and that the CIRP process had effectively reached a stalemate. It concluded that keeping the CIRP alive would waste resources and directed the closure of the CIRP, subject to the Appellant paying Rs. 18 lakhs to Prime Impex and the determination of CIRP costs by the Adjudicating Authority.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Withdrawal of CIRP - Compliance with Procedure - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12A - The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the withdrawal application as it was filed by a suspended director and not through the Resolution Professional, failing to meet the statutory requirements. Held that compliance with the procedure is mandatory for withdrawal under Section 12A (Paras 24-30).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant could withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Appellate Tribunal closed the CIRP proceedings against Shalfeyo Industries Pvt. Ltd., directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 18 lakhs to Prime Impex and for the Adjudicating Authority to determine CIRP costs within four weeks.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Section 12A
  • Regulation 30A
  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • withdrawal of CIRP
  • compliance with statutory requirements
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 150

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 222 of 2025

2026-09-07

Indevar Pandey, Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Arun Baroka

Sandeep Bajaj, Anupam Singh, Roshini Nathwani

Deepak Modi

Shalfeyo Industries Private Limited, Axis Bank Limited, Prime Impex

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of withdrawal application from CIRP

Remedy Sought

Withdrawal of CIRP

Filing Reason

Claims of creditors settled and no useful purpose in continuing CIRP

Previous Decisions

Application for withdrawal dismissed by Adjudicating Authority

Issues

Compliance with statutory procedure for withdrawal of CIRP Stalemate in CIRP proceedings

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for withdrawal due to settlement of claims Respondents contended that CIRP was prolonged due to disputes

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's application for withdrawal under Section 12A was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, emphasizing the necessity of following prescribed procedures for withdrawal from CIRP.

Judgment Excerpts

The application had been filed by Deepak Modi, a suspended director, seeking withdrawal under Section 12A The CIRP Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor/ Shalfeyo Industries Pvt. Ltd. are closed subject to the condition that the Appellant would pay Rs.18 lakhs to Respondent No.3 The Appellant has agreed to pay the CIRP Costs, which is pending adjudication in IA No. 160/2023 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

Procedural History

The CIRP was initiated on 16.08.2022, the withdrawal application was filed on 20.11.2024, and dismissed on 18.12.2024, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 12A
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Regulation 30A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Medical Admission Dispute — Compensation Ordered for Denied Admission. The Court upheld the High Court's interpretation of the prospectus but set aside the direction for admission, ordering compensation inst...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds State in Andhra Pradesh Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act Challenge — Abolition of Hereditary Trusteeship Held Constitutional. State's power to regulate secular aspects of religious institutions affirmed under Arti...