TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process could be closed and the admission order set aside on the basis of a settlement arrived at before constitution of the Committee of Creditors; (ii) Whether an intervenor's claim could prevent such settlement and withdrawal.
Issue (i): Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process could be closed and the admission order set aside on the basis of a settlement arrived at before constitution of the Committee of Creditors.
Analysis: The application for withdrawal was considered in the setting of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12-A and Regulation 30A of the CIRP framework, along with the Tribunal's inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. Since the Committee of Creditors had not yet been constituted, the settlement between the financial creditor and the corporate debtor fell within the recognised category where withdrawal or closure can be permitted. The Tribunal relied on the principle that, before constitution of the Committee of Creditors, settlement is not barred and the adjudicatory forum may act on a genuine compromise.
Conclusion: The settlement was accepted, the CIRP was closed, and the admission order was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether an intervenor's claim could prevent such settlement and withdrawal.
Analysis: The intervenor's objection was that it had already filed a claim and that closure of the insolvency process would prejudice its interests. The Tribunal held that the debt for which CIRP had been initiated stood settled with the financial creditor, and the existence of another creditor's claim could not stifle the settlement before constitution of the Committee of Creditors. The intervenor was left free to pursue its own remedies in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The intervenor's objection was rejected and did not bar closure of the CIRP.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the settlement was permitted to bring the insolvency proceedings to an end, while preserving the intervenor's liberty to take independent proceedings for its own claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Before constitution of the Committee of Creditors, a settlement between the applicant creditor and the corporate debtor may be accepted and the insolvency proceeding withdrawn or closed in exercise of inherent powers, and the mere existence of claims by other creditors does not prevent such withdrawal.
TaxTMI 
