TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is maintainable where the Operational Creditor's claimed debt, after accounting for payments made pursuant to a settlement deed, falls below the statutory threshold.
2. Whether defaults which arose during the prohibited period under Section 10A of the IBC (suspension period arising from COVID-19 relief) can be counted for determining threshold/default in a Section 9 proceeding.
3. Whether delayed payment of the settlement amount (but full payment ultimately made) entitles the Operational Creditor to resile from the settlement, reclaim waived interest or insist on continuation of CIRP initiated by Section 9.
4. Whether conduct of the Operational Creditor in continuing or pursuing Section 9 proceedings after receipt of settlement amounts amounts to misuse/vexatious litigation warranting costs.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Maintainability of Section 9 where claimed debt falls below threshold after settlement payments
Legal framework: Section 9 of IBC allows an Operational Creditor to file application when there is an operational debt and default; Section 4(1) (threshold) prescribes minimum amount for operational debt to initiate process.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on accepted principles that Section 9 is attracted only when the debt and default as on date of filing satisfy statutory threshold; (see cross reference to treatment of defaults and threshold in later analysis of Section 10A and Ramesh Kymal).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the settlement deed's payment schedule, found admitted payments, and held that after excluding amounts received and other amounts protected under Section 10A, the remaining unpaid sum did not meet the threshold requirement. Default must be determined with reference to amounts that are due and payable; amounts extinguished by payment cannot be counted.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A Section 9 application is not maintainable if, after properly accounting for payments and legally excluded sums, the debt falls below the statutory threshold required to invoke Section 9.
Conclusion: The Section 9 application was non-maintainable because, after accounting for settlement payments and applicable exclusions, the outstanding debt failed to meet the threshold; impugned admission set aside.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Applicability of Section 10A bar to defaults occurring during the suspension period
Legal framework: Section 10A prohibits filing of CIRP applications in respect of defaults arising on or after 25.03.2020 for the notified suspension period; Explanation clarifies section does not apply to defaults before 25.03.2020.
Precedent treatment (followed): The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramesh Kymal v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. establishing that defaults occurring during the Section 10A period cannot form the basis for initiation of CIRP under Section 9.
Interpretation and reasoning: Default requires a debt to have become due and payable. Instalments falling due from 31.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 (as per settlement schedule) fall squarely within Section 10A prohibited period and are therefore immune from forming the basis of insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal held that such defaults must be excluded when calculating the debt for threshold and maintainability purposes.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Amounts falling due during the Section 10A suspension period cannot be included in calculation of default for instituting Section 9 proceedings; exclusion of such amounts may render petition non-maintainable if threshold is not met.
Conclusion: The Tribunal excluded defaults occurring in the Section 10A period from calculation, resulting in the remaining debt being below threshold and rendering the Section 9 admission unsustainable.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Effect of delayed but complete payment under settlement deed and entitlement to reclaim waived interest/penalty
Legal framework: Contractual settlement terms govern rights to interest/waiver/penalty; under IBC, an Operational Creditor must demonstrate debt and default not excluded by law to maintain Section 9. Default requires debt to be due and payable.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied contractual interpretation and statutory principles rather than introducing new precedent; the Ramesh Kymal principle was applied in context of prohibited period.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor had admitted receipt of the full settlement amount before the Tribunal and the Resolution Professional had received fees. Although there was delay in payment beyond settlement timeline, the Operational Creditor did not raise the delay objection earlier and had accepted part payments. The right to invoke consequences of delay (reclaim waiver/recover interest/penalty) depends on contractual entitlement and timely invocation; where full payment has been received and admitted, continuing or reviving Section 9 solely on account of belated payment is inconsistent with the settlement's effect and with IBC's purpose.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Mixed - Ratio that admitted receipt of full settlement amount precludes continuation of Section 9 where no other valid debt/default subsists; Obiter that delay per se, absent contractual enforcement steps timely taken, cannot be used to coerce further payments.
Conclusion: Since full settlement payment was made (albeit belatedly) and accepted, the Operational Creditor could not sustain Section 9 on the basis of the same debt; contractual remedies for breach/time-barred default could not convert into a maintainable insolvency petition given statutory exclusions and factual admissions.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Misuse/vexatious conduct and imposition of costs
Legal framework: Courts/Tribunals have power to impose costs where litigation is vexatious, abusive or constitutes misuse of process; IBC's purpose is insolvency resolution, not debt recovery or harassment.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the principle that IBC cannot be turned into a debt recovery mechanism and that vexatious pursuit of claims after settlement or where no maintainable default exists is impermissible.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the Operational Creditor continued to pursue Section 9 despite admitting receipt of settlement amount before the Tribunal and after the Resolution Professional's fees were paid. The conduct was described as vexatious and aimed at coercing further payment beyond the settlement. Continuing litigation in these circumstances was held to violate the spirit of IBC and justified imposition of costs to deter misuse.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an Operational Creditor pursues or maintains Section 9 proceedings despite full settlement payment and where the petition is rendered non-maintainable, the Tribunal may impose costs for vexatious conduct. Obiter - Characterizations of conduct as "rapacious" or "intimidatory" are evaluative but support the exercise of discretion to penalize misuse.
Conclusion: Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 were imposed on the Operational Creditor payable to the Appellant within thirty days as a measure for vexatious pursuit of Section 9; the CIRP admission set aside and Corporate Debtor released from CIRP.
Cross-references and final legal stance
1. Cross-reference: Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked - exclusion of defaults during Section 10A (Issue 2) directly affects computation under Issue 1 and can render a Section 9 petition non-maintainable.
2. Final stance of the Tribunal: Admission under Section 9 cannot stand where proper exclusion of Section 10A-protected defaults and admitted settlement payments reduces the debt below statutory threshold; delayed but completed settlement payment cannot be converted into a basis for CIRP; vexatious pursuit warranted costs and dismissal of the Section 9 admission.
TaxTMI 
