2025 (7) TMI 2046

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Kumar Sharma, IRP. ORDER (Hybrid Mode) Heard counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing for Operational Creditor as well as Ld. Counsel for the IRP. 2. This appeal have been filed against the order dated 30.06.2025 by which on an application filed by Operational Creditor under Section 9 order has been passed for admission of Section 9 application. Appellant aggrieved by the order has come up in appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel for the Operational Creditor and Ld. Counsel for the IRP. On 07.07.2025 when the appeal was taken for consideration following order was passed:- "ORDER (Hybrid Mode) 07.07.2025: Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5.2025, the settlement talks were again initiated between the corporate debtor and the Respondent No.1 and accordingly, settled the matter vide the settlement agreement dated 28.06.2025 which is already annexed with the above captioned by the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 is a signatory to the same. 7. It is stated that immediately thereafter, the company petition was listed for pronouncement before the NCLT on 30.06.2025 i.e. the first day on the reopening of the NCLT after the summer vacations and the Respondent No.1 was not aware of the same and therefore, the Respondent No.1 was not able to apprise the NCLT that the matters stands settled between the parties and the default stated in the company petition did not exist on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... existing. 5. We have considered submission of counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Operational Creditor has filed an affidavit as noticed above where the settlement dated 28.06.2025 has already been referred and accepted, the reasons have given by the operational creditor as to why it could not be brought into the notice of Adjudicating Authority on 30.06.2025 when the orders was pronounced that the parties have settled. The present is a case where admittedly settlement took place prior to initiation of CIRP and the reason due to which the said settlement could not be informed to the court has already been mentioned by the Operational Creditor in his affidavit who has filed Section 9 application. Ld....