NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 8(1), 8(2), 9, 9(5)(I)(A), 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND RULE 6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Om Logistics Limited Vs. Servel India Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0035

NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'code') read with Rules 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of Corporate Debtor. While allowing the application NCLT held that In the light of that decision, when we shall consider the case in hand then we are of the considered view that since it is specifically mentioned in Section 8(2) of the Code that within ten days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice, the corporate-debtor is required to bring to the notice of the operational-creditor, the existence of dispute or the documents regarding the payment of debt, therefore, we have no option, but to hold that since the corporate-debtor fails to give the reply of the demand notice and raised the disputes, hence after his appearance in response to the notice, he cannot raise it by filing the reply to the application filed on behalf of the operational-creditor and this has also been held by another NCLT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Jai Laxmi Traders v M/s. Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. IB-2184/(ND)/2019. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that in view of Section 9(5)(i)(a) since the application is complete, there is no payment of unpaid operational debt, which is more than Rs.1 Lakh, which is the minimum threshold U/S 4 of the Code for initiating a proceeding U/S 9 of the Code and no notice of dispute as required U/S 8(2) of the Code is raised by Corporate Debtor. Therefore, we think it is proper to admit the application.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 164, 248, 252 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Classic Combustions India Private Limited Vs. Registrar Of Companies, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0026 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant, under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the struck off company. While allowing the appeal NCLT held that it is evident from the plea of the Applicant that the Applicant has not questioned the process undertaken by the RoC in striking off the name of the Appellant Company as envisaged under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with attendant Rules. However, the Applicant is seeking restoration of its name in the register as maintained by RoC ...
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON RULE 16 OF THE COMPANIES (COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENTS AND AMALGAMATIONS) RULES, 2016 AND SECTION 133, 230, 230(1)(B), 230(8), 231, 232 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Nanak Consultants Private Limited And Ors Vs. Osiatic Consultants And Investments Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0039 NCLT allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 230 & 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules framed there under, as in force from time to time, for the Sanction of the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation. While allowing the petition NCLT held that upon considering the approval accorded by the members and creditors of the petitioner Companies to the proposed Scheme, and the affidavit by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs reply submitted by the Tr...
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 3(12), 5(21), 8, 8(1), 9 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND RULE 6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Nitin Gupta Vs. International Land Developers Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0015 NCLT dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'code') read with Rules 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor. While dismissing the petition NCLT held that In the light of that facts when we shall consider the case in hand then we find that the settlement agreement on the basis of which the present applicatio...
Read more