The New Delhi Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has allowed withdrawal of CIRP against HIL (India) Limited under pre-amendment Section 12A IBC after all intervening creditors, including M/s Wanksons Chemical Industries, record settlements, while preserving remedies of non-intervening creditors. Applying pre-amendment Section 12A read with Regulation 30A, the NCLT has directed IRP to hand over all records, documents, and information collected during the course of the CIRP to the suspended Board of Directors. Upon such handover, the IRP shall stand discharged from his duties in relation to the CIRP.
In terms of Regulation 30A(7), IDBI Bank Limited was directed to pay the expenses incurred by, and fees payable to, the IRP pursuant to the commencement of the CIRP up to the date of the order. At the same time, the NCLT clarified that withdrawal does not extinguish rights of creditors who did not intervene in the proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal (President) and Ravindra Chaturvedi (Technical Member) observed that Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations, effective at the time of filing, permitted the original applicant to settle the matter with the Corporate Debtor and seek withdrawal of the main petition through the IRP before the constitution of the CoC.
The Bench held that the instant application under Section 12A was liable to be allowed, as the interveners’ claims had been settled. However, it clarified that the settlement had been recorded only with creditors who had intervened in the matter either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the NCLAT, and therefore the order allowing the application shall not be construed to bar the rights of other creditors who have either already filed their claims before the IRP but not intervened, or may file their claims, from availing their legal remedies in accordance with law.
Briefly, the Corporate Debtor, M/s HIL (India) Limited, was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, on an application filed by IDBI Bank Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The admission order was challenged by one of the suspended directors, Mr. D.N.V. Srinivasa Raju, before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which directed the IRP not to take any further steps in pursuance of the admission order.
During the pendency of the appeal, the suspended director reached a settlement with IDBI Bank. The NCLAT thereafter, upheld the admission order on merits but, in view of the settlement, permitted the suspended director to file an application under Section 12A of the IBC before the Adjudicating Authority. Pursuant to this, the IRP filed the instant application. The NCLT issued notice and directed the addition of M/s Wanksons Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd. as Respondent No. 3, which pleaded that its claim of more than Rs. 19 crores had not been settled.
Also read Courts Must Not Impose Personal Moral Views While Deciding Bail: Supreme Court
M/s Wanksons entered into a commercial arrangement with the Corporate Debtor in 2017 for the supply of Chloral to be used in the production of DDT. It had an outstanding claim of Rs. 21.11 crores, comprising Rs. 10.02 crores towards principal and Rs. 11.08 crores towards interest, apart from further interest accruing until actual realisation. M/s Wanksons had also filed a claim of Rs. 19.66 crores with the IRP through Claim Form B dated Aug 12, 2025. The said claim was stated to be a matter of pre-existing dispute pending before the State Level Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC).
IDBI Bank issued a letter accepting the settlement offer made by the suspended director. Settlements were also reached with operational creditors who had intervened, including M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited, M/s ATO (I) Limited, and M/s Sekai Private Limited. During the hearing, the Adjudicating Authority was apprised of the settlement reached with M/s Wanksons, and the parties were given liberty to place an affidavit in respect of the recorded settlement.
