Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 597 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyRestoration of company petition seeking initiation of CIRP - In view of another petition, the fist petitioner was asked to approach IRP for further action - effect of Withdrawal of another Company Petition - allegation of default in payment of a Financial Debt - Regulation 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 - HELD THAT:- This Authority by order dated 12.02.2020 admitted the other Company Petition against the same Respondent/Corporate Debtor. The order dated 13.02.2019 was made suo motu after the order of admission was passed. The said order of admission was set at naught by withdrawal of the Company Petition under Section 12A of the Code. Therefore, necessary corollary would have been that the order dated 13.02.2020 passed in this case was accordingly suo motu recalled, its basis having become non-existent. The Applicant however filed an application for recall of the order dated 13.02.2020 to restore the Company Petition for hearing it on merits. Now the Application having been not pressed, what could be the fate of the Company Petition! Whether the same should be left unattended in view of the order dated 13.02.2020 or should the Authority take some action for redressal of the Company Petitioner on merits. As already indicated the Company Petitioner cannot be left in the lurch for none of its dereliction. An Application for restoration of the Company Petition is sought as a matter of prudence and practice, so that disposal of Company Petition, as in the present case, is not ignored and the Petitioner is left without a remedy. Taking into consideration the principle of law discussed, the Company Petition needs to be restored to file and relegated to date of hearing i.e. 11.02.2020 for further action in the matter. While ordering so it would not be out of place to mention that the allegation of forgery and perjury raised in IA Nos. 51 and 52 of 2020 shall not be affected by the orders passed herein.
|