2021 (2) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Page 22) which reads as under: "Ld. Counsel for the Operational Creditor appears. Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor appears. An application was filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor claiming an amount of Rs. 5,61,000/- for default in payment. This Application has come up for hearing today. Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor filed objection and submitted that the Application is not maintainable on the ground that similar application was filed by the self same Operational Creditor which is withdrawn vide order dated 04/09/2018. A look at the order demonstrates that this Applicant was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted that he has instructions from the Corporate Debtor to withdraw the matter. Permission to withdraw the matter is granted. Matter stands withdrawn and disposed off." 5. The Appellant says that it had subsequently sent another Notice under Section 8 of I&B, Code on 25th January, 2019 as per Annexure A/4- Page 32 and the Respondent appears to have replied even to this Notice on 08th February, 2019 (Annexure A/5- Page 37) and referred to the earlier developments and the earlier disputes raised. The Appellant however filed fresh Application under Section 9 of I&B, Code having C.P. (IB) 605/KB/2019 vide Annexure A/6 - Page 44. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant is submitting and the Appeal also claims that the Impugned Order is no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel for the Appellant referred to earlier Order of withdrawal Annexure A/3 where the Tribunal recorded that "Learned Counsel for the Operational Creditor submitted that he has instructions from the Corporate Debtor to withdraw the matter". On basis of such noting in the earlier Order (which could even be typing error) the argument is tried to be made that there was offer of settlement. We do not accept such submissions. It would be strange that the Opposite Party gives instructions to the other side and other side on instructions from the Opposite Party withdrawing petition. 9. Even if it was to be accepted that any such statement was made, the same was not put on record and the new Application with note 8 as reproduced above does not....