A MANOHAR PRASAD Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Application seeking to set aside the Insolvency Notice issued in I.N. No. 11 of 2009.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Vineeth Subramani, learned Counsel for the Applicants and Mr. Om Prakash, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

(3.) A careful perusal of the decree passed on "consent terms" would show that primarily a liability to the extent of the whole amount with future interest at quarterly rests, was fixed under Clause 1 of the decrees. Howe3ver, under Clause 7 of the decree, the Bank agreed not to execute the decree, but to record full satisfaction, if the Applicants and the Company paid a particular amount, on or before 14.10.2006. Under sub-clause (b) of Clause 7 of the decree, different amounts were indicated as final settlement amounts, acceptable to the Bank, if payment was made before the dates indicated against each, in the tabular column given under Clause 7(b) of the decree. But Clause 8 of the decree made it clear that the judgment-debtors would be deemed to have committed default, if the amounts indicated in the table under Clause 7(b). were not paid even after the expiry of 270 days from 14.10.2006.