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 Upholds Insolvency Process, Rejects Closure Application, Citing Default History & Homebuyer Claims</h1> <h3>Tejinder Pal Setia Versus Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. And Jagbir Singh Versus Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.</h3> Tejinder Pal Setia Versus Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. And Jagbir Singh Versus Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Settlement Agreement and its breach.2. Admissibility of the application for closure of CIRP.3. Role and rights of Homebuyers in the CIRP process.4. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to close CIRP before CoC constitution.Summary:Validity of the Settlement Agreement and its Breach:The Corporate Debtor, Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., acknowledged dues to the Operational Creditor, Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., and entered into a Settlement Agreement on 27.09.2021 to settle for Rs. 60 Lakhs. Despite partial payments, the Corporate Debtor defaulted on subsequent payments, breaching the Settlement Agreement. The agreement stipulated that in case of default, Kone could continue with insolvency proceedings to claim the entire debt of Rs. 92.70 Lakhs with interest.Admissibility of the Application for Closure of CIRP:Tejinder Pal Setia filed I.A. No. 1571 of 2023 to close the CIRP, offering to liquidate the debt. Despite the offer, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, emphasizing the breach of the Settlement Agreement and lack of mutual agreement between the parties. The Tribunal upheld that the Corporate Debtor's failure to adhere to the Settlement Agreement and subsequent offers did not justify closing the CIRP.Role and Rights of Homebuyers in the CIRP Process:Homebuyers, who filed a Section 7 application for claims exceeding Rs. 121 Crore, were impleaded in the CIRP process. The Tribunal recognized their substantial claims and the necessity for insolvency resolution, reinforcing the decision to continue the CIRP.Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to Close CIRP Before CoC Constitution:The Tribunal acknowledged that the Adjudicating Authority has inherent jurisdiction to close CIRP before CoC constitution under Rule 11. However, it concluded that given the Corporate Debtor's history of defaults and substantial liabilities, the CIRP should proceed. The Tribunal noted that the CoC was constituted on 27.07.2023, and any closure of CIRP now would require 90% approval from the CoC.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming that the CIRP should continue due to the Corporate Debtor's repeated defaults, significant claims from Homebuyers, and the necessity for a comprehensive insolvency resolution process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
