TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nn, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prateek Kedawat, Advocate for R1 ORDER [Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]: The Respondent M/s. Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Ltd, claiming themselves to be the Operational Creditor, had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, as against Shri Girija Alloy & Power (I) Pvt Ltd, the Corporate Debtor, contending thereof that the proceedings under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, deserve to be initiated against the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor for the reason, being that they had fallen in default for a determined amount of Rs.3,70,41,755.50/-. 2. The backdrop of the case is that the Operational Creditor, the Applicant to the Section 9 applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order, since the Corporate Debtor neither supplied the goods nor refunded the advance outstanding, a Demand Notice in the shape of Form-3 as prescribed under Rule 5 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, was issued by the Operational Creditor on 21.10.2024, demanding payment of the aforesaid defaulted amount. The Corporate Debtor, in their reply dated 07.11.2024, acknowledged the liability, and gave a commitment to refund the advance amount received from the Operational Creditor. The Corporate Debtor failed to establish the existence of any dispute as per Section 8(2)(a) of the I & B Code, 2016, and also failed to furnish any proof of payment of the unpaid operational debt in terms of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eached with the Respondent No.1, and the few days time may be given to place the settlement on record, the said request was refused by the Tribunal and the said oral refusal to grant time to place settlement on record of the proceedings, was not even referred in the proceedings because of which, a solvent and a commercially viable company has been unjustly put to face the CIRP process. There have been various contentions raised by the Appellant qua the challenge given to the impugned order. But primarily, what has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that, once the parties have entered into a settlement and when the same was assured to be placed before the Tribunal within 24 hrs, the Tribunal ought to have taken cognizanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncement of CIRP as against a commercially viable Corporate Debtor, and instead, it ought to have accepted the settlement on record and should have passed an appropriate order. This version extended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is not controverted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, Operational Creditor. 9. In view of the fact that, the proceedings of the Company Appeal are a proceeding in continuity to the proceedings of Tribunal, any issue such as the fact of the settlement arrived at and the terms thereof which might have been skipped to be considered by the Learned NCLT or which might not have been taken note of, while deciding the proceedings, can still be considered at the stage of appeal, and the petition can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eady issued publication in pursuance of the order 30.06.2025. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that in view of the settlement between the parties on 28.06.2025 prior to order date 30.06.2025 there were no debt existing for admission of Section 9 application hence we close the CIRP. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has undertaken to pay the fee of the IRP and expenses incurred by the IRP within two weeks from today." 10. The fact remains that the closure of the CIRP based upon the accepted terms of settlement, only aids the process of helping a Corporate Debtor to remain in operation, thereby achieving the object of the I & B Code of maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, instead of putting it to face the CIRP or ....