https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459152 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. en-us Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Dec 2024 21:07:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459152 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459152