TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a brief mention. M/s. P P Bafna Ventures Private Limited (herein after referred to as the Financial Creditor) of M/s. KVR Industries (herein after referred to as the Corporate Debtor) filed the Company Petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (the Code for short) seeking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the allegation of default in payment of a Financial Debt. One Eshwar Enterprises, an Operational Creditor (OC) of the Corporate Debtor (CD) had also filed TCP (IB) No. 119/9/AMR/2019 (the other Company Petition). The Petition was admitted by an order dated 12.02.2020 by this Authority initiating CIRP. At that stage the present Company Petition had been part heard. Since the other Company Petition was admitted, this Authority felt that there was hardly any need to keep the present Company Petition pending. It accordingly by order dated 13.02.2020 directed the Applicant to approach the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in terms of Regulation 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 for further action in the matter and disposed of the present Company Petition. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prayed that forgery and perjury having been practiced, IA Nos. 41 and 42 of 2020 could not be allowed. While the matter was being heard, the Financial Creditor filed a memo dated 29.05.2020 (by e-mail on 30.05.2020) seeking withdrawal of the IA Nos. 41 and 42 of 2020 with liberty to file a fresh Interim Application recapitulating the contents of the Interim Application Nos. 41 of 2020. Copy was served on the other,side and a counter running into several pages was filed. The filing of the memo by the Financial Creditor had a fresh twist to the already murky proceedings. It is contended by the Corporate Debtor that on the face of the applications seeking criminal prosecution and cross examination, the Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to wriggle out of conundrum resulting from the multiple IAs as above. As if the drama was not enough the Financial Creditor filed another IA on 01.06.2020 effectively reiterating the prayers made in IA No. 41 of 2020 which, it had sought under the memo dated 29.05.2020. Since the present IAs were pending this Authority by order dated 02.06.2020 directed not to number the IA. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Financial Creditor that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Court, forgery and perjury being punishable offences. In the same vein it would follow that no order of prosecution of the person verifying the affidavit can be ordered by this Authority. That would be outside the realm of the jurisdiction conferred on this Authority. Therefore, I refrain from making any comment and passing any orders on the merits of IA Nos. 51 and 52 of 2020. That however would not preclude anybody including the Corporate Debtor to raise the matter of forgery and perjury before a competent forum. While allowing the withdrawal of IA Nos. 41 and 42 of 2020,1 am not inclined to grant any liberty to the Applicant (FC) to file another application for the same prayer as in IA No. 41 of 2020. The Applicant (FC) having withdrawn from pressing the prayer therein could not be allowed to reagitate the matter by another application for whatever reasons, be it of substance or form or other technicalities. Therefore I am not inclined to grant the Applicant (FC) liberty to file another Application for the self-same prayer. Accordingly, I have no reason before me to allow withdrawal of the Application and at the same time grant liberty to file another. The withdrawal simplic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Mst. Katiji: AIR 1987 SC 1353 ruled that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The principle has also been echoed in Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva (Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2003 decided on 29.01.2013). 11. This Authority by order dated 12.02.2020 admitted the other Company Petition against the same Respondent/Corporate Debtor. The order dated 13.02.2019 was made suo motu after the order of admission was passed. The said order of admission was set at naught by withdrawal of the Company Petition under Section 12A of the Code. Therefore, necessary corollary would have been that the order dated 13.02.2020 passed in this case was accordingly suo motu recalled, its basis having become non-existent. The Applicant however filed an application for recall of the order dated 13.02.2020 to restore the Company Petition for hearing it on merits. Now the Application having been not pressed, what could be the fate of the Company Petition! Whether the same should be left unattended in view of the order dated 13.02.2020 or should the Authority take some action for redressal of the Company Petitioner....