{"id":200535,"date":"2018-08-23T11:00:37","date_gmt":"2018-08-23T05:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=200535"},"modified":"2018-10-18T16:15:45","modified_gmt":"2018-10-18T10:45:45","slug":"disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/","title":{"rendered":"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): <\/strong>A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) dismissed an appeal filed against the order of National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad whereby appellant\u2019s application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was dismissed.<\/p>\n

The appellant submitted that their claim was admitted by the respondent and the NCLT wrongly relied on other evidence to come to a conclusion that there was an existence of dispute<\/em>. It was on record that series of emails were exchanged between the parties alleging non-submission of work completion certificate, non-completion of work, amount deductible for lead piping and non-removal of scrap material, and exorbitant tonnage claim made by the appellant contrary to existing industry practices.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the aforementioned disputes were raised by the respondent much prior to issuance of demand notice by the appellant under Section 8(1). There was nothing on record to suggest any correctional measure taken by the appellant. On the other hand, the respondent pleaded that there was an existence of dispute<\/em>. It was observed that there were disputed question of facts as to whether, subsequently, the scrap material was removed and exorbitant tonnage claim made by the appellant was corrected. It was held that such disputed questions cannot be determined by NCLT. The Appellate Tribunal, accordingly, upheld the decision of the NCLT not to admit the application under Section 9. The appeal was dismissed holding it to be sans merit. [Laina Power Engineering v. Sokeo Power (P) Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 414<\/b><\/a>, dated 16-08-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":153604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[31566,31564,31565,31347],"class_list":["post-200535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-correctional-measure","tag-disputed-facts","tag-nclt-hyderabad","tag-section-9-ib-code"],"yoast_head":"\nDisputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-08-23T05:30:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-18T10:45:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"844\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/\",\"name\":\"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-23T05:30:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T10:45:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":844},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT","og_description":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial)","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-08-23T05:30:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-18T10:45:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":844,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/","name":"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","datePublished":"2018-08-23T05:30:37+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T10:45:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","width":1330,"height":844},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/23\/disputed-question-of-facts-cannot-be-determined-by-nclt-application-under-section-9-ib-code-rejected-nclat\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Disputed question of facts cannot be determined by NCLT; application under Section 9 I&B Code rejected: NCLAT"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":201242,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/03\/application-under-sections-7-9-or-10-i-nclt-not-required-to-record-detailed-decision-thereunder-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":200535,"position":0},"title":"Application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 I&B Code not adversarial litigation; NCLT not required to record detailed decision thereunder: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial)\u00a0 dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai whereby the application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205629,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/admission-of-application-under-section-9-ib-code-without-notice-to-corporate-debtor-held-contrary-to-law-violative-of-natural-justice-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":200535,"position":1},"title":"Admission of application under Section 9 I&B Code without notice to corporate debtor held contrary to law, violative of natural justice: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Two-Member Bench comprising of S.J. Mukhopadhaya(Chairperson) and Bansi Lal Bhatt (Member-Judicial), JJ. set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi) for being violative of principles of natural justice. NCLAT had admitted the application filed by the respondent (operational\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/25\/if-debt-has-been-disputed-question-of-default-doesnt-arise-orders-under-section-9-ib-code-quashed-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":200535,"position":2},"title":"If \u2018debt\u2019 has been \u2018disputed\u2019, question of default doesn’t arise; orders under Section 9 I&B Code quashed: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice A.I.S. Cheema, Member (Judicial), allowed an appeal filed against the order of National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai whereby an application preferred by the respondent (Operational Creditor) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203934,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/nclt-not-to-entertain-application-under-section-9-ib-code-before-expiry-of-10-days-from-date-of-giving-notice-under-section-81-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":200535,"position":3},"title":"NCLT not to entertain application under Section 9 I&B Code before expiry of 10 days from date of giving notice under Section 8(1): NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 18, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) allowed an appeal filed against an order of National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai). The respondent preferred an application under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219804,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/21\/nclat-nclt-new-delhi-in-terms-of-s-601-ibc-held-to-have-jurisdiction-in-s-7-application-against-corporate-debtor-having-properties-in-up\/","url_meta":{"origin":200535,"position":4},"title":"NCLAT | NCLT, New Delhi in terms of S. 60(1) IBC, held to have jurisdiction in S. 7 application against Corporate Debtor having properties in UP","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson); Justice A.I.S Cheema, Member (Judicial) and Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-Director of Corporate Debtor against the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (New Delhi) whereby it had admitted the application filed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200034,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/10\/proceedings-under-section-9-ib-code-quashed-in-absence-of-demand-notice-in-terms-of-section-81-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":200535,"position":5},"title":"Proceedings under Section 9 I&B Code quashed in absence of Demand Notice in terms of Section 8(1): NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 10, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) allowed an appeal filed challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant preferred the present appeal against the proceedings initiated by the National\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200535","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200535\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}