Despite a settlement agreement being filed, the Tribunal disposed of the Section 9 application based on the parties joint memo, with no substantive order recorded.
The company petition was disposed of in terms of the joint settlement memo.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.No.26
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH – 1 VC AND PHYSCIAL (HYBRID) MODE
ATTENDANCE CUM ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON 12-03-2024 AT 10:30 AM
CP(IB) No. 211/9/HDB/2023 u/s. 9 of IBC, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s. Vardhaman Chemical Industries
…Operational Creditor
VS
Vivin Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited
…Corporate Debtor
C O R A M:-
DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SH. CHARAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
O R D E R
Learned PCS Mr. Tapasvilal Deora, for Operational Creditor and learned counsel Ms Sumathi, for Corporate Debtor present physically and stated that matter has been settled and a joint terms of settlement were e-filed on 11.03.2024 and physical filing will be done today. A joint memo along with enclosing of Corporate Debtor Guarantor of the settlement agreement dated 11.03.2024 and the photo copy of the cheques purportedly issued by the Corporate Debtor and both sides wanted to settle.
In the light of the memo nothing survives at this stage. Hence company petition is disposed of in terms of the memo.
Sd/- MEMBER (T)
Sd/-
MEMBER (J)
Swapna
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA
CHARAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
