National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: In a recent order passed by S.J. Mukhopadhaya, (Chairperson) and Bansi Lal Bhagat J., (Member), regarding the appeal of the petitioner, to set aside the proceedings of the ‘Insolvency Resolution Process’ was dismissed and set aside even when both the parties (appellant and respondent) had come to a mutual settlement.
In the order that was given previously, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B code) an order of moratorium had been passed and an ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ had been appointed with certain directions to check the proceedings. However, post settlement, the appellant had approached the Appellate Tribunal to call off the previous order, but the appeal was set aside on the grounds that after admission of an application under Section 7 of the ‘I&B Code’, neither party can withdraw the application even if a settlement has been made. Also, it is an established law that if the adjudicating authority initiates the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’, then no jurisdiction lies to recall the order of admission, and hence NCLAT has the jurisdiction to pass an order, but cannot recall the same.
After rejection of appellants’ plea to accept the settlement, the Tribunal suggested the appellants to move to a court with competent jurisdiction for the grant of appropriate relief. [Kapil Gupta v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) No. 296 of 2017, decided on 1-12-2017]
