insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , 3(11) , 5(21) , 9 – settlement entered into between parties- Does not fall within the ambit of an operation debt – Earlier application under Section 9, was withdrawn by the applicant and no liberty was granted by the Adjudicating Authority to restore the application – Settlement agreement was entered into , wherein the parties agreed to settle the outstanding operational debt amounting Rs.5,71,09,219 at a settlement amount of Rs.4,50,00,000 only – The moment the parties entered into a settlement agreement the nature of the debt being operational debt defined under Section 5(21) of the Code, 2016 is gone as now the debt is not owed for the supply of goods or rendering of services – The amount outstanding pursuant to the settlement agreement is only a settlement amount which can merely be a debt as defined under Section 3(11) of the Code, 2016 but in no circumstances can be an operational debt as it has lost its substratum of operational debt and is only a debt pursuant to the settlement between the parties. Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency)No.36 of 2023 case titled Permali Wallace Private Limited versus Narbada Forest Industries Private Limited , 17.01.2023, referred. [Para 21]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Is not a recovery proceeding – ibc is not a recovery proceeding where because the money or part of it has not come, the party may repeatedly come to the Adjudicating Authority for the recovery of the amount – Provisions of the Code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such IBC is not a recovery proceeding and the Application which has been filed by the appellant in the present case is only the application for recovery of balance amount of the interest and application was not filed for resolution of any insolvency of the Corporate Debtor (Swiss Ribbon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, referred .
“ time and again, it has been expressed and explained by this Court that the provisions of the Code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such. The intent of the appellant had only been to invoke the provisions of the Code so as to enforce recovery against the corporate debtor.” M/s. Invent Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Private Limited v. M/s. Girnar Fibres Limited [Civil Appeal No. 3033/2022]