Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. Ltd. v. Hindustan Power Projects (P.) Ltd.

COMPANIES ACT, 1956

--Winding up--Received huge sum under settlement agreementProceedings--Delay in making payment--Application for revival of liquidation proceedings --Where petitioner company had received a huge sum under the settlement agreement, then it could not be entitled to seek revival of the liquidation proceedings against respondent company, merely because there was delay in making the payments under the settlement agreement.--Petitioner company C and respondent company H had entered into a settlement and filed the consent terms with the Court along with a settlement agreement. As per the settlement, an amount was to be paid by H to C, in 12 equal monthly installments. C contended that barring first six installments, none of remaining installments were paid in time and rescheduled again and again at the instance of H. C filed applications under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1956 praying for revival of liquidation petitions, as H had failed to perform its obligation in terms of the settlement. H contended that there was delay in payment of installments but the time to pay the installments were extended by the Court.Held: C had accepted the payments in the extended period and that too with interest on the default installments, then simply because there was delay in making the payments under the settlement agreement, C was not entitled to seek revival of the liquidation proceedings. Hence, the application for revival of the liquidation proceedings was dismissed.