Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Despite the contentions raised by the Appellant, Appellant entered into settlement with the Operational Creditor to discharge his dues, which has been filed by an Affidavit by the Appellant as well as Respondent.”
The NCLT stated that the petitioner neither had a direct contractual relationship with the respondent, nor was the respondent provided with any goods/services, thereby disqualifying them as an operational creditor.
The NCLAT set aside Adjudicating Authority’s order initiating CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
The Tribunal stated that if the withdrawal of the Section 9 Admission order was upheld and CIRP were to start afresh from the date of admission of the Section 7 Application, it would have resulted in an inadequate insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor.
“A claim may not be barred by limitation. It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation.”
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai- The Coram of Ashok Kumar Borah, Judicial Member, and Shyam Babu Gautam, Technical Member while
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson) and Justice Anant Bijay Sing (Judicial Member) and
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical), allowed an appeal seeking to
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) and Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical), dismissed an appeal filed
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi: The Bench comprising of S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and A.I.S Cheema, Member (Technical) and Kanthi
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice A.I.S. Cheema, Member (Judicial) and Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical), dismissed
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): Justice Bansi Lal Bhat and Balvinder Singh, Members (Judicial) held that the application filed by the appellant