ADARSH SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SWAWLAMBI SAMITI LTD THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE Y N YADAV vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the prayer made in I.A. No. 6755 of 2021 for withdrawal of Company Petition No. 16 of 2015. The Court noted that the parties had settled the matter and the amount in question had been received by the petitioner (ISARC). The reasoning was based on the fact that the settlement was reached, the compromise amount was paid, and an NOC was issued. The Court directed that it would be open to the Official Liquidator to raise a bill for security expenses to OP No. 1 (Metal Om Technique Private Limited), and OP No. 1 shall pay the admitted amount. The Official Liquidator was also granted liberty to remove the security if it was still continuing. The ratio decidendi is that when parties to a company petition have amicably settled their disputes and fulfilled the terms of the settlement, the petition can be allowed to be withdrawn. The operative direction was to allow the interlocutory application and dispose of the company petition.
What were the facts?
The case involves Company Petition No. 16 of 2015, filed by India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (ISARC) against M/s Metal Om Technik Pvt. Ltd. (OP No. 1) and the Official Liquidator. ISARC sought settlement of a loan account with OP No. 1. The parties reached a compromise, with OP No. 1 agreeing to pay a total settlement amount of Rs. 100 Lakhs. This settlement was facilitated by a previous court order allowing an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 6262 of 2018) on October 18, 2019, which directed the addition of ISARC as a petitioner. OP No. 1 also agreed to pay security expenses as directed by the Official Liquidator. The settlement amount and delayed interest as operational cost were paid to ISARC, and an NOC was issued. The Official Liquidator was to raise a bill for security expenses, which OP No. 1 agreed to pay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Company Petition No. 16 of 2015 should be permitted to be withdrawn, given the settlement between the parties? (Question of procedure and settlement) Assessee (ISARC) Contentions: - The Opposite Party (OP No. 1) approached ISARC for settlement of the loan account. - The loan account was compromised, and ISARC issued a sanction letter for the settlement on March 12, 2019, for a total compromise amount of Rs. 100 Lakhs. - The settlement occurred pursuant to a court order allowing I.A. No. 6262 of 2018 on October 18, 2019, which directed the addition of ISARC as a petitioner. - OP No. 1 paid the entire settlement amount of Rs. One Crore and delayed interest as operational cost of Rs. 2,98,668/- to ISARC. - An NOC was issued by ISARC on September 27, 2021. - The learned counsel for OP No. 1 also agreed that the petition can be permitted to be withdrawn. Revenue Contentions: - No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue (Income-Tax Department) in relation to the withdrawal of the petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Company Petition No.2 of 2015
---- R.R.Trading Co., a proprietorship firm
….. Petitioner -- Versus --
METAL OM-TECHNIC PVT.LTD.
…... Opposite Party
With
Company Petition No.16 of 2015
---- India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered as a Securitization and Reconstruction Company pursuant to Section 3 of the SARFAESI Act, having its registered office at 1004 10th Floor, Naman Centre, Plot No.C- 31, G-Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai, through its Chief Manager, Abhay Singh, s/o late S.R.Singh, Kolkata Branch Office at Floor VIII A-Wing Constantion Building, 11, Dr.V.N. Brahmachary Street, Kolkata0700017
….. Petitioner -- Versus --
M/s Metal Om Technik Pvt. Ltd, an existing company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Rahargora, PO Rahargora, PS Parsudih, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, PIN 831016, Jharkhand 2.5 Official liquidator, 4th floor, Mangal Tower, Old Hazaribagh Road, Ranchi(v/o dated 15.12.2017) 2.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissionerate, Jamshedpur
…... Opposite Parties
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pravin Jaiswal, Advocate
Mr. Nitin Pasari, Advocate
For the O.P.No.1 :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Official Liquidator: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
For Income-Tax Dept.:Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
----
39/23.12.2021 I.A. No.6755 of 2021 has been filed for withdrawal of C.P.Case No.16 of 2015.
Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that O.P.No.1 approached the petitioner- ISARC for settlement of loan account. The loan account was compromised as the petitioner has issued sanction letter for the proposed settlement dated 12.03.2019 and total compromise amount was Rs.100 Lakhs has been received by the petitioner. This has happened pursuant to the order by this Court by allowing I.A. No.6262 of 2018 dated 18.10.2019 and the counsel for the petitioner was directed to add the name of ISARAC Assets Reconstruction Company Limited as petitioner. This was happened pursuant to the statement made by the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator as the debtors are required to pay the security expenses and the learned
counsel for the O.P.no.1 agreed to pay such expenses. This fact has been recorded in the order dated 18.10.2019 and the O.P.no.1 has paid the entire settlement amount of Rs.One Crore and the delayed interest as operational cost of Rs.2,98,668/- to the petitioner (ISARC). The N.O.C has also been issued on 27.09.2021 by the petitioner. These documents are also annexed with this I.A. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 is also in agreement and submits that this petition can be permitted to be withdrawn.
The learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 submits that pursuant to the order dated 29.03.2019, the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited before the Registrar General of this Court and the receipt of that has been mailed which is also on the record.
In view of this fact that the parties have settled the matter and the amount in question has been received by the petitioner, the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed.
I.A. No.6755 of 2021 is allowed.
It is open to the Official Liquidator to raise the bill for security expenses to the O.P.No.1 who is Metal Om Technique Private Limited and the O.P.No.1 shall pay the admitted amount.
Official Liquidator is at liberty to remove the security if the security is still continuing there.
C.P.No.16 of 2015 stands disposed of.
Let the orders passed in C.P.No.16/2015 be kept with the record of C.P.No.2/2015.
C.P.Case No.2/2015
Let this case be detached from the batch of these two cases and be placed in usual course.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Abdul Majid vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Dipankar Borgohain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Jack And Jill vs. The Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Ms Akher Ali vs. The Union Of INDIAGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026