https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397453 Private settlement could not justify withdrawal of corporate insolvency proceedings where multiple creditors and allottees were involved and the compromise protected only the applicants; Rule 11 is discretionary and cannot be used to defeat the collective character of insolvency. An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was also not maintainable where the applicants proceeded as decree-holders under a Recovery Certificate issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, since a decree-holder seeking recovery of an adjudicated amount is not, by that fact alone, a financial creditor disbursing debt for time value of money. The Tribunal held that insolvency cannot be used as a substitute for execution, set aside the admission order and consequential actions, and dismissed the Section 7 application. en-us Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:19:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397453 Private settlement could not justify withdrawal of corporate insolvency proceedings where multiple creditors and allottees were involved and the compromise protected only the applicants; Rule 11 is discretionary and cannot be used to defeat the collective character of insolvency. An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was also not maintainable where the applicants proceeded as decree-holders under a Recovery Certificate issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, since a decree-holder seeking recovery of an adjudicated amount is not, by that fact alone, a financial creditor disbursing debt for time value of money. The Tribunal held that insolvency cannot be used as a substitute for execution, set aside the admission order and consequential actions, and dismissed the Section 7 application. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397453