# In the matter of Lingamaneni Ramesh Vs. MTU Maintenance Berline Brandenburg GmBH & Anr. CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1333-2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-12-17. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00011. The case involves an appeal against the admission of an application under Section 9 of the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 17 Dec 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00011
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/lingamaneni-ramesh-vs-mtu-maintenance-berline-brandenburg-gmbh-anr-ca-0177d02a

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the admission of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('I&B Code') filed by MTU Maintenance Berline-Brandenburg GmbH & Anr. against LEPL Projects Limited ('Corporate Debtor'). The application was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Amaravati Bench on 14th November, 2019. The appellant intended to settle the matter with the respondent.

## Facts

MTU Maintenance Berline-Brandenburg GmbH & Anr. filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against LEPL Projects Limited ('Corporate Debtor'). The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application on November 14, 2019. The Appellant expressed intention to settle the matter with MTU Maintenance Berline-Brandenburg GmbH. The 'Committee of Creditors' was not constituted. The Appellant filed an additional affidavit enclosing a Settlement Agreement dated December 10, 2019. MTU Maintenance Berline-Brandenburg GmbH accepted that settlement has been reached and total payments have been made. The 'Interim Resolution Professional' incurred costs, including payments to a lawyer. The Appellant was directed to reimburse Rs.5 lacs to MTU

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the impugned order dated 14th November, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority should be …

**Ratio:** Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 confers inherent power to set aside an order in view of a

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the settlement agreement between the parties and the acceptance by

…

**Interpretation:** Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules allows the tribunal to exercise inherent powers to

…

**Application:** The court applied Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 to set aside the impugned order,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Lingamaneni…
- **Respondents:** LEPL Projects…; MTU Maintenance…
- **Advocates:** Swapnil…; Rudrajit…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2019-11-14 — Admission of Ap…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Amaravati Bench admitted the…
- **2019-11-20 — Matter Ta…**: Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued the case on merit and submitted that the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

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/lingamaneni-ramesh-vs-mtu-maintenance-berline-brandenburg-gmbh-anr-ca-0177d02a