ORDER

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for short ‘IBC’ r/w Rules 11, 34 and 149 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for restoration of the Company Petition CP(IB) No.48/9/2022, titled M/s.Trammo DMCC, (for short ‘Applicant’) versus M/s.Nagarjuna Fertilisers & Chemicals Limited, (for short ‘Respondent’) under Section 9 of the IBC.

2. The facts necessary to dispose the present application, as stated, are:

2.1 It is averred that prior to the filing of the CP(IB) No.48/9/2022, this Adjudicating Authority had admitted another petition CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019, vide Order dated 27.08.2021, which was filed by M/s.Keytrade AG against M/s.Nagarjuna Fertilisers & Chemicals Limited under Section 9 of the IBC.

2.2 Against the Admission Order dated 27.08.2021 in the Company Petition CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019, the Corporate Debtor has filed Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No.215/2021, wherein the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, for short ‘Hon’ble NCLAT’, vide Order dated 14.09.2021 has directed that there shall be no implementation of the Order dated 27.08.2021 till the next date of hearing.

2.3 This Authority vide Order dated 25.05.2023 has disposed of the CP(IB) No.48/9/2022 with a direction that the Applicant was at liberty to pursue its claim before the IRP appointed in CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019 and in case the Admission Order was set aside/reversed etc., the present Applicant was given liberty to approach this Authority in accordance with the provisions of the IBC.

2.4 In the meanwhile, the Hon’ble NCLAT allowed the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No.215/2021 and set aside the Order dated 27.08.2021 in CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019. As the Admission Order dated 27.08.2021 in CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019 did not exist anymore, the Applicant has prayed for the restoration of the CP(IB) No.48/9/2022.

3. The Respondent in reply has not denied about the development taken place in CP(IB) No.48/9/2022, but submitted that vide Order dated 25.05.2023 this Authority in CP(IB) No.48/9/2022 has given liberty to approach this Authority in accordance with the provisions of the IBC. As there is no provision under the IBC to restore the Company Petition, therefore the Applicant can approach this Authority only by way of filing of fresh petition.

3.1 The respondent has referred to criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate wherein after the intervention of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana vide order dated 10.10.2023, summons have been issued to the Applicant.

3.2 Filing of fresh petition also becomes necessary in view of various developments taking place after the disposal of CP(IB) No.48/9/2022 and therefore the Applicant is required to disclose those facts.

3.3 The Respondent has also taken the plea that the dispute cannot be considered as Operational Debt to be payable by the Corporate Debtor and there is no debt as it has not crystallised.

3.4 The Respondent has also quoted the decision in re., Ashok Kumar Tyagi vs. UCO Bank and Another in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1323 of 2022 and submitted that the stand of the Applicant is against the said judgement.

4. Heard the submissions of both sides. We have also gone through the entire record.

5. The Company Petition CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019 was admitted under Section 9 of IBC, vide Order dated 27.08.2021 and the said order was agitated before the Hon’ble NCLAT by filing Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No.215/2021. In view of the admission of petition CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019 and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional, for short ‘IRP’, the Company Petition CP(IB) No.48/9/2022 was disposed of vide Order dated 25.05.2023 and operative part of the order is reproduced as below:

“The Petitioner/Operational Creditor herein is at liberty to pursue its claim under the present CP, before the IRP appointed in CP(IB) No.524/9/HDB/2019, and in such an event the IRP shall examine the claim as per the provisions of the I