Tribunal permits withdrawal in IBC case, CoC's authority upheld, creditor's claim accepted

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application under Section 12A of the IBC, dismissing the main Company Petition. The Financial Creditor's claim was accepted, but their refusal to accept the admitted amount led to the Tribunal permitting withdrawal. The CoC had the authority to file the withdrawal application, meeting the required 90% voting share through rounding off percentages. The decision aligned with legal principles and previous judgments, emphasizing compliance with the IBC.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for withdrawal of the Company Petition under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
2. Validity of the authorization to file the withdrawal application.
3. Compliance with the requisite 90% voting share for withdrawal.
4. Acceptance of the admitted claim amount by the Financial Creditor.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Withdrawal of the Company Petition:
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) filed I.A. No. 244/2019 seeking withdrawal of the Company Petition (C.P. (IB) No. 46/BB/2018) under Section 12A of the IBC, 2016. The petition was initially filed by a Financial Creditor to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor for a default amount of Rs. 5,02,23,791. The CoC decided not to continue the CIRP and filed the withdrawal application with a voting share of 89.85%, including Home Buyers.

2. Validity of the Authorization to File the Withdrawal Application:
The Financial Creditor opposed the application, arguing that the authorization given to file the withdrawal application was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal clarified that the CoC, as per its order dated 11.03.2019, was permitted to file the application under Section 12A. The Tribunal held that the CoC has the authority to file the withdrawal application, and the original Petitioner does not have the exclusive right to do so.

3. Compliance with the Requisite 90% Voting Share:
The Financial Creditor contended that the required 90% voting share was not met. The Tribunal referred to the General Clauses Act, which allows rounding off percentages, and determined that 89.85% can be rounded off to 90%. Additionally, the Home Buyers constituting 10.15% did not oppose the proposal, indirectly indicating no objection. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court judgment in Anup Prakash Vyas vs. University of Pune, which supports the application of rounding off based on logic and common sense.

4. Acceptance of the Admitted Claim Amount by the Financial Creditor:
The IRP scrutinized all claims and found the Financial Creditor entitled to Rs. 90,29,491. The Corporate Debtor offered a cheque for this amount, but the Financial Creditor refused to accept it, insisting on continuing the CIRP or proceeding to liquidation. The Tribunal noted that the Financial Creditor's claim was verified and accepted for Rs. 90,29,491, and since the claim amount was not challenged, the Financial Creditor could not maintain the original petition. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to accept withdrawal applications lies with the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, as per the Supreme Court judgment in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited vs. Union of India.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application, dismissed the main Company Petition, and permitted the Financial Creditor to collect the cheque deposited with the Registry. The Tribunal held that the CoC was authorized to file the withdrawal application, the requisite 90% voting share was effectively met, and the Financial Creditor's contention was not tenable. The decision was made in the interest of justice, ensuring compliance with the IBC and relevant legal precedents.

---