TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Samarth Shreedhar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate For Mr. N.P. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate Mr. P. Srivastava, Erstwhile RP JUDGMENT KANTHI NARAHARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Preamble: The Present Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2020 passed in I.A. No. 273 of 2020 in CP 199 of 2018 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) whereby the Adjudicating Authority in the above order observed that the Appellant Bank is entitled to file fresh Company Petition in accordance with the provisions of the code instead giving liberty to resume the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor i.e. the 1st Respondent herein. Brief Facts: A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e. 14.07.2020. 5. It is submitted that the 2nd Respondent filed an Appeal before this Tribunal bearing CA (AT) (Ins) No. 673 of 2020, and this Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2020 directed the 2nd Respondent to file an Application within a period of two weeks from 10.08.2020 before the NCLT Bengaluru Bench to record the settlement as per Section 12 A of the I & B Code, 2016. 6. The 2nd Respondent had filed I.A. 273 of 2020 praying the Adjudicating Authority to terminate the CIRP Proceedings initiated pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2020 in view of the settlement arrived at between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor. During the Course of hearing of the aforesaid I.A., the Appellant Bank had also filed a Memo before the Adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... light of communication dated 15.05.2020 issued by the Enforcement Directorate that a complaint has been lodged by the State Bank of India. 11. In view of sudden freezing the Account of the Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor was unable to pay the salaries to its employees, despite having sufficient funds in the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor had taken steps before the respective courts challenging the communication dated 15.05.2020. 12. In view of the reasons that the accounts remained frozen even till date, the Company was unable to operate the accounts and submitted that the Corporate Debtor may be permitted to submit a fresh proposal for settlement of the dues of the Appellant Bank so that the Company ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee months from the date of approval of OTS proposal and requested the Appellant Bank to accept the said OTS proposal. 16. In response to the above, the Appellant Bank vide a letter dated 10.07.2020 addressed to the Corporate Debtor stating that the Appellant Bank is agreeable to the said proposal for re-payment of Rs. 22.7 Crores as full and final settlement of all the dues under the facilities, subject to the terms and conditions specified in Annexure I to the above letter including payment of all upfront amounts specified in the Annexure. The terms and conditions have been enumerated in Annexure I. 17. In view of the above terms of settlement, the 2nd Respondent a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor filed an Appeal before this Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal in the matter of 'Vivek Bansal vs. Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 552 of 2020' and submitted that the Adjudicating Authority to take into consideration the above judgment of this Tribunal and specifically stated that the Appellant/ Financial Creditor be given liberty to resume the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor in case of non-compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement. It is also stated that the same relief also sought by the Corporate Debtor in the I.A. filed before the Adjudicating Authority. 20. However, the Adjudicating Authority had not taken into consideration the prayer as made in I.A. No. 273 of 2020 dated 05.08.2020 and a memo filed by the Appellant dated 14.08.2020 whereby the Appellant spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal being the Appellate Authority as a precedent in a similarly situated case. Findings: 23. This Tribunal comes to a resultant conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 in I.A. No. 273 of 2020 in CP 199 of 2018 with regard to sub para 4 of para 9 of the impugned order regarding the observation/liberty to file a fresh Company Petition by the Appellant Bank is erroneous and without application of mind and without following the Principles of Natural Justice and not adhering to the decision of this Tribunal being the Appellate Authority, is hereby quashed and set aside. We make it clear that the entire sub para 4 of para 9 is hereby set aside by passing the following directions. 24. Accordingly,....