NCLT Rejected Re-Filing of Insolvency Petition by FC, as AA Did Not Allow Re-Filing Post-Settlement Failure
- Blog|News|Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 26 December, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Subham Capital (P.) Ltd. v. Vedic Realty (P.) Ltd. - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 466 (NCLT-Kolkata)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Smt. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member & D. Arvind, Technical Member
-
Joy Saha, Sr. Adv., S. Mitra, Shounak Mitra, Ms V. Panday & A. Sarkar, Advs. for the Applicant.
-
Ms Urmila Chakraborty & Ms M. Barman, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Applicant-financial creditor had granted loan to the respondent-corporate debtor. The financial creditor filed a petition under section 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor.
During pendency of the said petition, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and, on basis of the said settlement agreement, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The corporate debtor made some payments but later dishonoured several cheques. Consequently, the financial creditor filed the instant petition under section 7 of the IBC on the ground of default in payment in terms of the settlement agreement.
The corporate debtor alleged that the previous petition was withdrawn without leave to file a fresh petition, hence, the instant petition was not maintainable on self-same cause of action.
NCLT Held
The NCLT held that, if withdrawal is allowed without liberty to come afresh in respect of the same subject matter, that would be absolute withdrawal, and the applicant cannot be permitted to proceed again on the same cause of action. Further, since the previous petition was withdrawn by the financial creditor himself and the NCLT had not given any liberty to come up afresh if settlement failed, the instant petition was not maintainable.
List of Cases Referred to
- Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior & Ors (1987) 1 SCC 5 (para 33 and 51)
- Swiss Ribbons Private Limited v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 (para 35)
- Global Credit Capital Limited v. Sach Marketing Pvt. Ltd 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649 (para 64).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
