On objects and scheme of the Code, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the IBC aims at promoting, inter alia, investments and also resolution of insolvency of Corporate persons. The IBC is not just another statute for recovery of debts. An application cannot be dismissed, without compliance with the requisites of the Proviso to Section 7(5) of the IBC.
Further, the Court on filing additional documents and amendment in CIRP application, held that the proviso to Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC obliges the Adjudicating Authority to give notice to an applicant, to rectify the defect in its application within seven days. The Adjudicating Authority may accept the cured application, even after expiry of seven days, for the ends of justice. There is no bar to the filing of documents at any time until a final order either admitting or dismissing the application has been passed. Needless however, to mention that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is inordinate delay, the Adjudicating Authority might, at its discretion, decline the request of an applicant to file additional pleadings and/or documents, and proceed to pass a final order.
The Hon’ble Court on the matter of Recovery Certificate issued by DRT held that a final judgment and order/decree is binding on the judgment debtor. Once a claim fructifies into a final judgment and order/decree, upon adjudication, and a certificate of Recovery is also issued authorizing the creditor to realize its decretal dues, a fresh right accrues to the creditor to recover the amount of the final judgment and/or order/decree and/or the amount specified in the Recovery Certificate.