TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, it is evident that the petitioner is not interested in resolving the dispute or entering into any form of a settlement agreement in the present scenario. This conduct of the petitioner puts question on the bonafides of this petition. Even though there is a debt and default on the part of the respondent, we believe that it is not the respondent who is responsible for filing or the pendency of this petition. The respondent has time and again stated that he is willing to pay the principal amount only as the amount of interest has not been mentioned in the agreement - Neither the respondent nor this Bench can deny the fact that there has been debt and default on the part of the respondent in making payment to the petitioner, but it is believed that initiating CIRP against a solvent company, as in this case is the respondent, will prejudice the company and the people associated with it and this is clearly not the objective of the Code to put a solvent company under CIRP. It will be prejudiced to the respondent if this matter is admitted and CIRP is initiated against the respondent - this petition stands dismissed. - C. P. (IB) 195/MB/2019 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2021 - Hari Ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid at all or partially paid in an irregular and unsystematic manner. The petitioner submitted that the respondent has also improperly terminated the Employment Agreement with the petitioner on 03.04.2018 with immediate effect through a letter drafted and sent on a law firm's letter head claiming to be acting on the instructions of the respondent accompanied with credit of payment of one month's salary after deduction of TDS and PF contributions (RS. 1,21,340) in lieu of notice period in the salary bank account of the petitioner through internet banking fund transfer. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner had issued a demand notice dated 13.04.2018 as per Section 8 of the Code demanding the operational debt of ₹ 22,69,127/-. The petitioner submitted the respondent replied to this notice on 23.04.2018 wherein the it has raised frivolous and illusionary dispute, without any documents/records to substantiate the same and that this dispute has been raised by the respondent for the first time and therefore, is a feeble dispute in terms of settled position of law. Later, on 02.05.2018, the respondent addressed an email to the petitioner proposing amicable settlement between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he meeting have been exchanged between the respondent and counsel for the petitioner. The parties agreed on the total amount towards settlement for the matter (INR 16,00,000) and to this effect and the respondent agreed to hand over post-dated cheques for April, 2021 and May, 2021 for this amount immediately upon signing of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement. However, these settlement talks have since not materialized into tangible terms/settlement agreement solely because the petitioner did not agree to the payment terms or allow for a settlement agreement to be drawn up. It is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that this petition has been filed by him only with an objective to harass the respondent company and individuals associated with it as he has no intention to settle the matter as he refused to formalize the terms and bring an end to the lis between the parties. 10. The respondent quoted Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. Anr. v Union of India and Ors.-MANU/SC/0079/2019 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that a settlement can be entered into between the corporate debtor and the creditor at any stage before a committee of creditors is constituted under the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and again stated that he is willing to pay the principal amount only as the amount of interest has not been mentioned in the agreement. Here, we believe that it is pertinent to take into consideration the financial position of the respondent and the repercussions if the respondent company is admitted into CIRP more so for a small claim of 22 and odd lakhs. There has been no argument/document shown by the petitioner to prove that the respondent company is not financially sound and therefore, should be admitted into CIRP. The objective of the Code is very clear to aid resolution of the organizations which are insolvent i.e. unable to pay their debts and are consistently defaulting. But in the present scenario, there is nothing on record to prove that the respondent is insolvent. On the contrary, the respondent is still willing to pay the principal amount. The respondent denies to pay the interest because of absence of any clause relating to the interest in the said agreement between the parties. Neither the respondent nor this Bench can deny the fact that there has been debt and default on the part of the respondent in making payment to the petitioner, but we believe that initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
