Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1537 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Corporate Debtor - appointment of an IRP - section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - doctrine of approbate and reprobate - HELD THAT:- In the present matter not only the applicant but equally the respondent/corporate debtor company in the present petition as well as in the petition before the Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench have made allegation, counter allegation against each other raising dispute on legality, enforceability and validity of such settlement agreement dated 15th March, 2016 along with an original service agreement dated 8th July, 2010. Therefore, by taking into consideration these allegations which appears to be disputed question of fact. We feel it is not proper for this court within scope of I & B Code to explore the truth behind such agreements as in our humble view such disputed facts need to be ascertained by issue involved therein can be dealt with only by a competent civil court. The agreement dated 15th March, 2016 cannot be enforced nor can be acted upon through filing of the present petition under the I & B Code before this Tribunal to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent company because of the applicant himself in a parallel proceeding before a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has very much disputed the contents of such agreement, free will and meeting of free minds before executing such deed and has already opted to revert back to his original contract i.e. service agreement dated 08.07.2010. Hence, in our view it is no longer open to him to fall back again seeking enforcement of the disputed agreement dated 15th March, 2016 for the purpose of initiation of the CIRP against the present corporate debtor as both of the parties to the present petition have made allegations, counter allegation against each other for making undue influence, coercion etc. Such issue needs to be agitated before a competent court of law and not before us under the I & B Code. Further, we are constrained to observe such the approach of the applicant in this petition, it is not improper, so, even then it cannot be said as fair to make parallel approach in both courts by keeping in dark with each other. Such action on the part of applicant is deprecated - the present application is liable to be rejected on the ground alone, even otherwise it is found maintainable before this Bench. The present petition is not found complete and maintainable on the basis of such doctrine of approbate and reprobate - the present petition is liable to be rejected on the question of maintainability under the I & B Code before this Bench of the Tribunal.
|