AMIT KATYAL versus MEERA AHUJA AND OTHERS

AMIT KATYAL versus MEERA AHUJA AND OTHERS

Given the settlement between the appellant/corporate debtor and the original applicants and a majority of home buyers, the absence of substantive COC proceedings following a timely stay, and undertakings to complete the project and make payments, this Court (exercising Article 142 read with Rule 11 NCLT Rules) allowed withdrawal of the Section 7 application, quashed the NCLT/NCLAT orders relating to admission, and directed payment and performance of undertakings as the course best serving the larger interest of the home buyers and consistent with the object of the IBC.

Parties
Appellant: Amit Katyal; Respondents: Meera Ahuja and Others; Corporate Debtor: Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 3778 of 2020 / Final Disposal on Interlocutory Application Permitting Withdrawal of CIRP and Quashing Earlier Orders
Outcome
IA No.18679/2022 allowed; original applicants permitted to withdraw Section 7 application; CP No.1722/ND/2018 dismissed as withdrawn; NCLT and NCLAT orders quashed and set aside; related consumer and criminal proceedings dismissed as withdrawn/quashed; directions for payment and undertakings ordered.
Legal Topics
Section 7 IBC, Section 12 a IBC, Withdrawal of CIRP, Article 142 Constitution of India, Rule 11 NCLT Rules, 2016, Committee of Creditors (coc)
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Constitutional Law Company/corporate Law Section 7 IBC Section 12 a IBC Withdrawal of CIRP Article 142 Constitution of India Rule 11 NCLT Rules, 2016 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amit Katyal

Appellant

Meera Ahuja and Others

Respondents

Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate Debtor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 3778 of 2020 / Final Disposal on Interlocutory Application Permitting Withdrawal of CIRP and Quashing Earlier Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether original applicants who had filed a Section 7 IBC petition admitted by NCLT can be permitted to withdraw the CIRP proceedings after settlement
  2. 2 Whether withdrawal is permissible under Section 12A of the IBC or under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, and whether the Supreme Court can exercise Article 142 to permit withdrawal
  3. 3 Impact of allowing or refusing withdrawal on home buyers and the object of the IBC

Ratio Decidendi

Given the settlement between the appellant/corporate debtor and the original applicants and a majority of home buyers, the absence of substantive COC proceedings following a timely stay, and undertakings to complete the project and make payments, this Court (exercising Article 142 read with Rule 11 NCLT Rules) allowed withdrawal of the Section 7 application, quashed the NCLT/NCLAT orders relating to admission, and directed payment and performance of undertakings as the course best serving the larger interest of the home buyers and consistent with the object of the IBC.

Court Disposition

IA No.18679/2022 allowed; original applicants permitted to withdraw Section 7 application; CP No.1722/ND/2018 dismissed as withdrawn; NCLT and NCLAT orders quashed and set aside; related consumer and criminal proceedings dismissed as withdrawn/quashed; directions for payment and undertakings ordered.

Orders

  • Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to be paid Rs.3,36,02,000 along with accrued interest out of amount deposited by appellant; IA No.18679/2022 allowed
  • Respondent Nos.1 to 3 permitted to withdraw Section 7 application CP No.1722/ND/2018 pending before NCLT, New Delhi; CP No.1722/ND/2018 dismissed as withdrawn