2021 (11) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er called Impugned Order) passed in CP (IB) No. 10/2021 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Gawahati Bench) qua which an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short IBC) has been admitted against the Corporate Debtor M/s. Nayak Infrastructure Private Limited. The Appellant is a shareholder, promoter and suspended Director of the Respondent No. 2 - Corporate Debtor. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Corporate Debtor is a company engaged in the business of engineering, procurement and construction in road/railway projects and bridges and also undertakes turnkey projects encompassing a wide range of services, designs, engineering, procurement, supplies, construction....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect, as pointed out by the Appellant, is that the Respondent No.1 had made all the directors and guarantors parties in the section 7 application, and a defective application could not have been adjudicated upon. He has, further claimed that despite bringing on record the defects in the application, the Respondent No. 1 did not file any application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking to amend the application for removal of defects, nor did the Adjudicating Authority issue any direction to that effect. 7. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has stated that the Appellant had intimated its desire to settle the matter by offering a one-time settlement (OTS) to the financial creditor. Pending decision on the OTS, the Adjudicating Authority h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order given by the Adjudicating Authority on 26.7.2021, which was regarding filing of affidavit to delete names of personal guarantors from the section 7 application. (attached at p. 149 of Appeal Paperbook). 9. The other contention of the Learned Counsel of the Appellant is that the Appellant had submitted an OTS proposal to the financial creditor (State Bank of India), which was pending decision, and hence the Adjudicating Authority should not have passed admission order on section 7 application. The acceptance of the settlement proposal by the financial creditor is a matter entirely in the ambit of the financial creditor (SBI) and we do not think that the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority should have been held up and delayed....