TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mode ) Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain : This appeal is filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor against the order dated 06.06.2024, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench - IV) by which an application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') bearing CP (IB) No. 373/MB-IV/2021 against the Corporate Debtor, has been admitted. 2. The Operational Creditor filed an application under Section 9 of the Code on 19.03.2021 for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 2,30,57,100/- payable as on 01.03.2021. 3. The Operational Creditor issued demand notice under Section 8 of the Code on 23.01.2020 in respect of four i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed to withdraw in terms of the settlement with liberty to revive the same in the event of any default in the payment schedule", the Operational Creditor filed an application for restoration in the main company petition bearing 7 of 2024 which was allowed on 06.02.2024 with the following order:- "1. Mr. Vishal Shriyan a/w Riddhi W., Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Operational Creditor present. None present for the Respondent. 2. The Applicant/Operational Creditor has filed this Application to restore and revive the C.P.(IB)/373(MB)2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Bench vide order dated 03.01.2023 on the ground of settlement. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that both the parties entered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and all payment(s) made under this Agreement." 5. In view of the above facts, this Bench allows the restoration of C.P. (IB)/373(MB)2021. The Registry is directed to number the C.P. (IB)/373(MB)2021 as RCP and list the matter for hearing on 27.03.2024. 6. The Applicant is directed to serve the petition to the Respondents again. The Registry as well as Applicant are directed to issue Court Notice to the Respondents in C.P.(IB)/373(MB)2021 intimating them the next date of hearing and requiring them to file their reply within two weeks after receipt of the Notice and file proof of service before the next date of hearing. 7. Accordingly, RST.A/07(MB)2024 is allowed and disposed of." 7. After restoration of the mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the payment as per schedule. It is further submitted that it has also come in the order dated 03.01.2023 that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties which refers to the settlement agreement dated 13.12.2022. He has also argued that the order passed in the restoration application bearing no. 7 of 2024 on 06.02.2024 has not been challenged in appeal by the Appellant and the same became final and now the Appellant cannot raise the issue of the revival of the petition by referring to the decision in the case of SRLK Enterprises LLP (Supra). He has further submitted that it is otherwise a dishonesty on the part of the CD in contesting this petition on the ground that the settlement amount cannot be claimed because if this plea ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultimately the Tribunal forfeited the right of the CD to file reply. The order of forfeiture of right to file reply was also not challenged by the CD in appeal. Since, it is a case where the debt and default has been admitted by the CD by entering into a settlement deed, part payment was made but the remaining amount was not paid despite repeated emails, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly admitted the application which is above the threshold provided under Section 4 of the Code and there was no pre-existing dispute. The argument of the Appellant that settlement amount cannot be claimed as an operational debt is totally inconsequential as it has been held by this Court in the case of IDBI Trausteeship Services Limited Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle L....