TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 178 and 179 of 2020 are filed on similar set of facts. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority deems it proper to dispose the same by way of this common order. 2. Application bearing IA No. 176 of 2020 is filed by Mr. Konda Vishnuvardhan Reddy, inter-alia, praying to direct for a stay of constitution of Committee of Creditors and allow for closing the company petition and CIRP process as withdrawn and pass any other or orders as this Adjudicating Authority may deem fit. 3. Application bearing IA No. 177 in CP (IB) No. 262/9/HDB/2019 is filed by Interim Resolution Professional, inter-alia, seeking the following reliefs : a) Permit the applicant/operational creditor to withdraw the present matter i.e. C.P. (I.B) No. 262/9/HDB ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect the Claimant to return such money to the IRP in the matter. e) In the alternative, appropriate orders/directions be passed to reopen the matter for proper adjudication of CP. No. 774/9/HDB/2019 in the interests of justice. 6. Facts of the present case in brief are as under:- a. That upon Application filed by M/s Sri Chaitanya Chlorides Private Limited, under Section 9 of IB Code, 2016, an order of admission was passed for initiation of CIRP and an IRP was appointed vide order dated 16.12.2019. b. That against the order of admission dated 16.12.2019, an appeal was preferred by Mr. Konda Raghu Rami Reddy vide Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 41 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble NCLAT issued an interim order on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aims (5 from Operational Creditors and 1 from Financial Creditor). He further submits that the 'Committee of Creditors' has not been constituted yet and the resolution process has come to a grinding halt. In these circumstances, we direct the 'Interim Resolution Professional' to go ahead with the constitution of the 'Committee of Creditors'. Interim order prohibiting constitution of 'Committee of Creditors' is accordingly modified. At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellant wants to withdraw the Appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn......" 7. That the Applicant in Application bearing IA No. 176/2020, inter-alia stated as under: i. That pursuant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18.12.2019 as an order has been passed against the same Corporate Debtor. ii. The Applicant has submitted its claim for an amount of Rs. 1,09,79,579/- (One Crore Nine Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) in Form B under regulation 7 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate persons) Regulations, 2016 on 28.12.2019 to IRP. iii. That the Appeal before Hon'ble NCLAT was withdrawn by the Appellant on 13.02.2020. iv. That an Application for withdrawal of the Petition can be made either before or after the constitution of CoC. That the IRP shall without any further delay constitute the CoC. v. Reiterating above, the Applicant prayed to allow the Application as pray....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 in terms of provisions of section 12A of the Code read with Regulation 30A. 13. To decide the issues at hand, it would be necessary to consider the facts as they happened i.e., in chronological order. The Application bearing CP (IB) No 262/9/HDB/2019 was filed by the Operational Creditor M/s. Sri Chaitanya Chlorides u/s 9 of the Code against the Corporate Debtor on 23.04.2019. After affording an opportunity of being heard to the Corporate Debtor, this Adjudicating Authority has admitted the said Application vide its order dated 16.12.2019. Thereafter few more Applications bearing CP (IB) No. 736/9/HDB/2019, CP(IB) No. 774/9/HDB/2019 etc., were filed u/s 9 by the Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor including Applicants in IA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 wherein they were pleased to record the following findings: a. That the appellant stated that the matter has been settled with the sole Operational Creditor Sri Chaitanya Chlorides , but was disputed by the counsel of the said OC; b. That there' were other Operational Creditors present during the hearing, who stated that they were directed by this AA to make their claim before the IRP and the same has been made; c. That the Counsel of RP submitted that he has already received claims from five Operational Creditors and one Financial Creditor, but due to stay on constitution of CoC by the Hon'ble NCLAT, the CIRP has come to a grinding halt; d. That in view of the circumstances of the case, IRP wa....