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>Tribunal Grants CIRP Withdrawal, Emphasizes Case-by-Case Assessment</h1> <h3>Golla Ramakantha Rao, IRP Karvy Data Management Services Limited Versus Adventity Global Services (P) Ltd.</h3> Golla Ramakantha Rao, IRP Karvy Data Management Services Limited Versus Adventity Global Services (P) Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Application under Section 12A of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to set aside the order directing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor due to settlement between operational creditor and corporate debtor.Analysis:The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) filed an application under Section 12A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking withdrawal of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor citing a settlement between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor. The IRP relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons vs. Union of India, emphasizing the Adjudicating Authority's power to permit withdrawal of CIRP on account of settlement between the creditor and the corporate debtor. The key issue was whether the Resolution Professional could withdraw the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor by invoking inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules.The Tribunal considered the relevant provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code and the CIRP Regulations, specifically Section 12A and Regulation 30A, which provide for the withdrawal of a petition admitted under the Code. The Tribunal highlighted the discretionary nature of the power conferred on the Adjudicating Authority to allow withdrawal of the petition with the approval of the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Swiss Ribbons, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant factors before allowing or dismissing a withdrawal petition.The Tribunal further discussed the concept of 'concerned parties' in the context of withdrawal of CIRP, noting that it includes parties directly involved in the dispute before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal clarified that allowing withdrawal of CIRP would not deprive financial or operational creditors of their opportunity to submit claims, as they could still do so before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where withdrawal of CIRP was allowed post-settlement, ensuring protection of the interests of the applicants whose petitions were disposed of.Based on the analysis of the factual matrix and the absence of claims received by the IRP, the Tribunal exercised its inherent power under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules and allowed the withdrawal of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was released from the insolvency process and allowed to function independently through its Board of Directors, effective immediately. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case before making a decision on withdrawal of CIRP.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
