TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Miscellaneous Application for Withdrawal Denied in Insolvency Case</h1> <h3>Samarth Lifters Private Limited Versus DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Private Limited</h3> Samarth Lifters Private Limited Versus DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Private Limited - TMI Issues:1. Application for withdrawal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Moratorium initiation and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional.3. Objections by Intervenors against the withdrawal application.4. Legal implications of admitting a petition against the Corporate Debtor.5. Prejudice to other Creditors if withdrawal application is allowed.Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by a company seeking permission to withdraw a petition under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, due to a settlement agreement.2. The Tribunal noted an oversight in the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, where despite admission of a petition under section 9, no moratorium was imposed, and no Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed, leading to the inability to form a Committee of Creditors (CoC).3. Various Intervention Applications were filed by creditors objecting to the withdrawal application, arguing that allowing withdrawal would be prejudicial as the proceedings were in rem, and settlement should involve all creditors, not just the Petitioner.4. The Corporate Debtor's counsel relied on the Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing that proceedings under the Code are in rem, and settlement should involve consultation with the overseeing body before individual settlement is permitted, especially in the absence of a formed CoC.5. Citing the Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. case, the Tribunal reiterated that once a petition is admitted, the moratorium is automatically initiated, preventing the institution or continuation of proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, thereby rejecting the withdrawal application to prevent prejudice to other creditors.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for withdrawal under Section 12A, emphasizing that allowing withdrawal would heavily prejudice other creditors as the CIRP had commenced, and the moratorium was in effect, making other creditor petitions redundant due to the settlement sought by the Petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
