Binding settlement and unrebutted company petition allegations justified admission and citation, with no appellate interference.

A binding settlement before the Debt Recovery Tribunal remained enforceable, and the debtor's failure to honour the agreed payment schedule weighed against interference with the company petition. The earlier request to modify the compromise decree under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 had already been rejected, and no reply was filed despite repeated opportunities. On that record, the material before the Company Judge showed no error in admitting the petition and directing citation, so the appellate challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order admitting the company petition and directing publication of citation warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: The settlement before the Debt Recovery Tribunal remained binding and the appellant had failed to honour the agreed payment schedule. Its application for modification of the compromise decree under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 had already been rejected. The company petition was supported by unrebutted averments, as no reply was filed despite repeated opportunities. In these circumstances, the material placed before the Company Judge disclosed no error in admitting the petition and directing citation.

Conclusion: The order admitting the petition and issuing citation did not call for interference and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the impugned order was found to be sustainable on the basis of the admitted settlement and the absence of any effective rebuttal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a debtor fails to comply with a binding settlement and does not rebut the petition despite repeated s, an order admitting the company petition and directing citation will not be interfered with in appeal.

---