# In the matter of Brig. E. S. Krishnamurthy & Ors Vs. Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd  Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 649 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-07-30. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00185. The Appellants, claiming to be Financial Creditors based on being Lenders of the Corporate…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Jul 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00185
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/brig-e-s-krishnamurthy-ors-vs-bharath-hi-tech-builders-pvt-ltd-company-appeal-0103de71

## Summary

### Background

The Appellants, claiming to be Financial Creditors based on being Lenders of the Corporate Debtor, challenged an order dated February 28, 2020, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench. The Adjudicating Authority had disposed of the Company Petition with certain directions incorporated in Para 8 of the impugned order. The subject matter is a Housing Project with stakeholders, including Allottees and Investors. The Company Petition was disposed of based on Joint Consent Terms dated February 12, 2020, filed by the parties. The Adjudicating Authority noted that 140 Investor claims had been fully settled by the Corporate Debtor, with Rs.27.25 Crore paid to them, and 13 Petitioner claims had been settled before the Adjudicating

…

## Facts

The Appellants, claiming to be Financial Creditors, challenged an order by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) regarding a Company Petition related to a Housing Project. The Adjudicating Authority disposed of the petition based on Joint Consent Terms, noting that a significant number of investor claims had been settled. The Corporate Debtor was directed to settle remaining claims within three months. The application under Section 7 of the I&B Code was disposed of at the pre-admission stage. The NCLAT considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on business operations. The settlement process was supported by Consent Terms filed by some stakeholders. The Adjudicating Authority allowed a definite time frame of 3 months for settling the remaining claims.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the impugned order is prejudicial to the …

**Ratio:** The court held that the impugned order is not of such a nature which is prejudicial to

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the claimant(s) who may be dissatisfied or whose claims remain

…

**Interpretation:** This means that the court believes that the Adjudicating Authority is still

…

**Application:** The court applied this reasoning to the specific facts of the case, noting that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…; Anant Bijay…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Brig. E. S.…
- **Respondents:** M/s Bharath Hi…
- **Advocates:** Srijan…

## Timeline

- **2020-02-28 — Impugned Ord…**: Date of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),…
- **2020-02-12 — Joint Consen…**: Date of the Joint Consent Terms filed by…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/brig-e-s-krishnamurthy-ors-vs-bharath-hi-tech-builders-pvt-ltd-company-appeal-0103de71