CIRP termination on full debt repayment may be justified where the sole creditor rejects a genuine settlement offer.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, admission of CIRP under Section 7 rests on proof of debt and default, but post-admission termination or withdrawal is governed by Section 12A read with Regulation 30. The note says that where the corporate debtor has only one creditor and the entire admitted debt is offered for repayment during CIRP, the Tribunal may intervene to prevent abuse of the insolvency process. Refusal by the sole creditor to accept a genuine settlement, especially before third-party interests arise, need not prevent termination where continuation would defeat the Code's revival-oriented purpose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, once admitted, could be terminated on the basis of subsequent deposit of the entire debt amount where the corporate debtor had only one creditor, and whether refusal by that sole creditor to accept settlement could be treated as malicious or abusive conduct warranting intervention.

Analysis: Admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 depends on proof of debt and default, but post-admission withdrawal or termination is governed by the settlement framework under Section 12A read with Regulation 30 of the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016. The object of the Code is revival of the corporate debtor, not punitive divestment, and that object is materially relevant where there is only one creditor constituting the entire committee of creditors. In such a situation, a genuine offer to repay the admitted debt, made by the suspended board before third-party interests are created, cannot be disregarded merely because the original trigger for admission existed. Continued insistence on CIRP, despite complete repayment being made available and no other creditors having appeared, was treated as unjustified and reflective of an attempt to misuse the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The refusal of the sole creditor to accept settlement did not bar the Tribunal from terminating the CIRP, and the conduct was held to justify intervention to prevent abuse of the Code.

Final Conclusion: The CIRP against the corporate debtor was brought to an end and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a corporate debtor has only one creditor and the entire admitted debt is made available for repayment during the pendency of CIRP, the Tribunal may terminate the insolvency process to prevent abuse, notwithstanding the creditor's refusal to accept settlement, if continuation of CIRP would defeat the Code's revival-oriented object.

---