In this case, an application has been filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, to restore the captioned petition and revive the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on account of breach of the settlement arrived between the parties.
NCLT held that the Applicant himself has mentioned in the written arguments that more than 90% of the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor. IBC is not a recovery proceeding where the party may repeatedly come to the Court. The Corporate Debtor had paid a sum of Rs. 9,67,00,000/- which is 93.40% of the total outstanding liability. The law on the subject has been categorically laid down by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the matter of SRLK Enterprises LLP Vs Jalan Transolutions (India) Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 189 NCLAT. Hence time and again it has been expressed and explained by the various Courts that the Provisions of IBC, 2016 are not for the recovery of money; but here the intent of the Applicant reveals that the Applicant invokes the provisions of IBC,2016 in order to enforce recovery against the Corporate Debtor; the same should not be allowed.