|
Advanced Search Options
IBC - Case Laws
Showing 661 to 680 of 9152 Records
-
2024 (1) TMI 43
Rejection of Resolution Plan - Liquidation ordered - Application under Section 66 of IBC - reliability of Forensic Audit Report, an independent expert agency - ineligibility of the Appellants under Section 29 (A) (g) of the Code - HELD THAT:- It is seen CoC approved the resolution plan and accordingly the application for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was withdrawn by the Respondent/Resolution Professional. However, since the CoC at a later stage authorised the Respondent to file the application under section 66 of the Code, therefore the Respondent filed the said application after forming her independent opinion. Therefore, it is incorrect submissions made by Appellant that the Resolution Professional want to send the Corporate Debtor into liquidation.
It is the contention of the Appellants that the Statutory Auditor did not find any fraudulent transactions contrary to the Forensic Audit Report submitted by M/s VMRS & Associates, Chartered Accountants and therefore Forensic Audit Report was not correct. In this regard, it is observed that the role of Forensic Audit becomes relevant only when such situation occurs about alleged preferential, undervalued, fraudulent and extortionate type of transaction takes place and on most occasions the process of Forensic Audit is required to be undertaken after the annual financial statement of the Corporate Debtor are duly compiled and audited - the contention of the Appellant cannot be accepted that in absence of pointing out fraudulent transactions by the Statutory Auditors, the alleged fraudulent transactions should not have been taken into consideration by the Respondent or by the Adjudicating Authority.
There are no error in the Impugned Order dated 12.11.2021 and there are no merit in the Appeal.
Disapproval of Resolution Plan - Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor ordered - ineligible under Section 29 (A) (g) of the Code - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has power under Section 33(1) of the Code to reject plan and direct liquidation of Corporate Debtor, if any of the requirement of not fulfilled by Resolution Applicant - In the present case the Appellant/Resolution Applicant was declared ineligible under Section 29A(g) of the Code after determination of fraudulent transactions of Rs. 29,75,73,550/- by him along with related parties/ his family members vide order dated 12.11.2021 in I.A. 102/2021 - It is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has exercised its power in the light of Section 33(1) (a) for Initiation of Liquidation, where the Adjudicating Authority has to consider the maximum period permitted for completion of the CIRP under section 12 i.e., 330 days and in this case, around 1,469 days already been lapsed (25.07.2019 CIRP to 02.08.2023 date of liquidation order).
It is evident that once the Resolution Applicant become ineligible under Section 29 (A) (g) of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the Resolution Plan and consequently order for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - Section 29A(c) of the Code is provision which and has been added with clear intention to ensure that people who were at the helm of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, do not come back in some other guise to get back the management/ control/ ownership of the Corporate Debtor without clearing its outstanding debts - the persons who are not covered under clause 29 A(g), will remain eligible to submit resolution plans under clause (c) of Section 29A, else will become ineligible as in the present Appeal.
There are no error in the Impugned Order - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 42
Maintainability of application for restoration of the petition before the Adjudicating Authority - failure to cross the threshold limit - appeal dismissed also on the ground of threshold limit and not only on the ground of non-appearance of the appellant.
HELD THAT:- In the ordinary course, had an order been passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the petition filed under Section 9 of the Code only on the ground of non-appearance of the appellant then the application for recalling of the order dated 20.09.2022 could have been maintainable but the facts are otherwise because the order dated 20.09.2022 was passed on merits by the Adjudicating Authority holding that the petition under Section 9 is not maintainable as it has failed to cross the threshold limit as per Notification dated 24.03.2020 issued by the MCA.
This order could have been challenged by way of an appeal by the Appellant before the Appellate Authority but the Appellant did not choose to file the appeal rather filed a frivolous application for restoration of the petition, may be under wrong belief, that the petition has been dismissed for non-appearance of the appellant only - Thus, no error is committed by the Adjudicating Authority in dismissing the application for restoration vide impugned order dated 23.03.2023 because it has been observed that the order dated 20.09.2022 has been passed on merits much less on the ground that the Appellant has failed to cross the threshold limit as provided because the amount which has been sought to be resolved was Rs. 75 Lakh whereas after the amendment the threshold has been increased to Rs. 1 Crore.
There are no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 41
Admission of application filed under Section 7 of IBC - proceeding ex-parte ignoring the reply of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The reply having been filed which was noticed by this Appellate Tribunal in order dated 27.05.2022, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have looked into the reply and even it was not on the e-portal opportunity ought to have been given to bring it on e-portal or physical copy of the reply ought to have been taken from the Corporate debtor.
The Adjudicating Authority committed error in proceeding ex-parte ignoring the reply and admitting section 7 application. In result, the impugned order set aside, Section 7 application revived again before the Adjudicating Authority.
The Adjudicating Authority shall fix a date after two weeks and after hearing the parties pass afresh order in accordance with law.
-
2024 (1) TMI 40
Seeking direction to the IRP to admit their claim in full - Seeking not to treated as a related party of the Corporate Debtor - assignment of voting rights in respect of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has committed a patent error in holding that a related party has a right to join the meeting of the CoC - Adjudicating Authority has further erred in observing that the Appellant did not refer to a specific sub clause of Section 5(24) of the Code whereas it has in fact referred to Clause 5(24)(m) and also gave the detail of the name of the directors by way of a chart which also forms part of Para 11 of the impugned order but still there has been no finding in this regard.
Further, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in making specific observation that no material has been brought on record except general observations given by the RP on the basis of the order of SAT whereas the Appellant has produced on record a detailed summary which has been prepared on the basis of MCA Data which though has been reproduced in the impugned order from pages 89 to 111 but it has not been referred to in the discussion part where it has been rather held that no material has been produced except for the order of the SAT - The argument raised by the Respondent that every provision of Section 5(24) has its own effect and impact which has to be assessed on the basis of the evidence may be attractive but even that part has not been seen by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order.
This is a fit case for allowing the appeal for the purpose of its remand to the Adjudicating Authority to decide it afresh after take into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the Appellant and Respondent and then passing a speaking order - matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide it again by recording specific findings on the basis of material which has been brought on record - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 33
Constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - time bound resolution of insolvency - comparison between the stages of Part II and Part III of the IBC - role of the resolution professional in corporate as opposed to individual insolvency - impact of a moratorium under Section 14 of Part II, on one hand, and an interim-moratorium under Section 96 of Chapter III of Part III - role of the adjudicating authority in applications under Part II, on one hand, and Part III, on the other.
HELD THAT:- The conclusion of this judgment is summarised below:
(i) No judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in Sections 95 to Section 99 of the IBC;
(ii) The resolution professional appointed under Section 97 serves a facilitative role of collating all the facts relevant to the examination of the application for the commencement of the insolvency resolution process which has been preferred under Section 94 or Section 95. The report to be submitted to the adjudicatory authority is recommendatory in nature on whether to accept or reject the application;
(iii) The submission that a hearing should be conducted by the adjudicatory authority for the purpose of determining ‘jurisdictional facts’ at the stage when it appoints a resolution professional under Section 97(5) of the IBC is rejected. No such adjudicatory function is contemplated at that stage. To read in such a requirement at that stage would be to rewrite the statute which is impermissible in the exercise of judicial review;
(iv) The resolution professional may exercise the powers vested under Section 99(4) of the IBC for the purpose of examining the application for insolvency resolution and to seek information on matters relevant to the application in order to facilitate the submission of the report recommending the acceptance or rejection of the application;
(v) There is no violation of natural justice under Section 95 to Section 100 of the IBC as the debtor is not deprived of an opportunity to participate in the process of the examination of the application by the resolution professional;
(vi) No judicial determination takes place until the adjudicating authority decides under Section 100 whether to accept or reject the application. The report of the resolution professional is only recommendatory in nature and hence does not bind the adjudicatory authority when it exercises its jurisdiction under Section 100;
(vii) The adjudicatory authority must observe the principles of natural justice when it exercises jurisdiction under Section 100 for the purpose of determining whether to accept or reject the application;
(viii) The purpose of the interim-moratorium under Section 96 is to protect the debtor from further legal proceedings; and
(ix) The provisions of Section 95 to Section 100 of the IBC are not unconstitutional as they do not violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1309
Taking possession of the demise premises in view of Section 14(1)(d) of I&B Code - it was held by NCLAT that 'Since the demised premises ceased to be the property of the Corporate Debtor much prior to the initiation of CIRP, therefore, it cannot be covered under Section 14 much less 14(1)(d) of the Code' - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal since no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1255
Qualification of Resolution Applicant - Promotor of the company - Application for Resolution Plan dismissed on the ground that the promoters could not have presented the plan - ineligibility to continue as a Resolution Professional - ineligibility to be considered as Board is liquidator of the corporate debtor - whether the appellant had erred in putting up a plan that was not in consonance with law for consideration of the adjudicating authority?
HELD THAT:- As per the factual scenario on record, there is no per say disqualification under Section 29A - it is pointed out that the plea based on Section 240A needs the opinion of this Court as there are a number of such cases arising and the orders earlier passed are being followed.
The common submission thus, is that while interpreting Section 240A, the reason for carving out an exception in micro, small and medium industries is set out on the date of application for making the bid as the crucial date. The submission is that while for some other aspects the initiation of the CIRP proceedings would be the cut off date, the same would not apply in the case of Section 240A, in view of the statement by the Minister themselves while introducing the amendment Bill.
The statement of the Minister is looked into for purposes of a cut off date that “there is no other specific provision providing for cut off date” which submits that it should be the date of application of making a bid. Thus, to opine that it is the initiation of the CIRP proceedings which is the relevant date, cannot be said to reflect the correct legal view and thus, it is constrained to observe that the law laid down in DIGAMBAR ANANDRAO PINGLE VERSUS SHRIKANT MADANLAL ZAWAR, SHRIKANT MADANLAL ZAWAR, VANDANA GARG LIQUIDATOR M/S PINGLE BUILDERS PVT. LTD., STATE BANK OF INDIA, VIJAYA BANK, M/S SOORAJMULL BAIJNATH PVT. LTD. [2021 (7) TMI 456 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] case by the Tribunal is not the correct position in law and the cut off date will be the date of submission of resolution plan - Thus, even on this count, the plan submitted in question will not incur the disqualification.
The petition before the Adjudicating Authority would stand restored to National Company Law Tribunal for reconsideration
-
2023 (12) TMI 1249
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before NCLAT - whether the appeal was instituted within limitation? - Maintainability of application under Section 7 of the IBC - HELD THAT:- On the facts of the case, the Court noted that the appeal was barred by limitation as the appellant did not even attempt to secure a certified copy and only relied on the date of uploading the order on the website. Significantly, in the case, there was a pronouncement on the date mentioned on the order and the appellant did not dispute his presence before the NCLT when the order was pronounced in open court.
The date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement. The question that arises in the facts of the present case, therefore, is when is an order deemed to be pronounced. The National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 [NCLT Rules] provide guidance in this regard. Rule 89(1) of the NCLT Rules indicates that when NCLAT registry publishes its cause list, a distinction is drawn between cases listed for pronouncement of orders and other cases.
In the present case, the cause list for 17 May 2023 placed on record by the appellant indicates that the case was listed for admission and not for pronouncement. Further, on a specific query of the Court, it is not in dispute between counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that no substantive order was passed on 17 May 2023 by the NCLT. In these circumstances, limitation would not begin to run on 17 May 2023 which was the date on which hearings concluded. As no order was passed before 30 May 2023, there was no occasion for the appellant to lodge an application for a certified copy on 17 May 2023. Time for filing an appeal would commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to that date no order was pronounced.
The period of limitation began to run on 30 May 2023. The 30- day limitation period provided in Section 61(2) of the IBC concluded on 29 June 2023. Though the appeal was filed beyond the period of thirty days, it was within the condonable period of fifteen days - the appeal should be restored to the NCLAT for reconsidering whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay beyond thirty days.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1248
Maintainability of section 9 application - HELD THAT:- The present appeal is dismissed - It is clarified that the impugned judgment and the dismissal of the present appeal will not be construed as an expression of opinion on whether the petition under Section 9 of the IBC is within time.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1247
Submission of claim before COC - HELD THAT:- The pleas and contentions of Kamal Kant Dewan and Bharat Food and Agro Products, as well as the contentions of White Water Hospitality Private Limited, will be examined by the adjudicating authority.
The impugned judgment set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1246
Dismissal of Section 9 application - pre-existing dispute - HELD THAT:- The email sent by the Corporate Debtor indicate the entire issue raised between the parties, where the Corporate Debtor denied any outstanding amount. Further, the receipt which was claimed by the Corporate Debtor was the receipt of the diamonds received on behalf of the Appellant, which were all before the date when Demand Notice was issued. This indicate that at the time when Demand Notice was issued, there were dispute between the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the Section 9 application there being a pre-existing dispute - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1245
Seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal - existence of sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appeal has been filed on the last date i.e. 15th day i.e. 45th day. The reason given in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay appears to be a halfhearted attempt on the part of the Appellant for condonation the delay of 15 days because it is mentioned therein that the appellant took time for procuring relevant documents and as such the counsel for the Appellant could not receive instructions on time. However, in the additional affidavit, the Appellant has mentioned that it had to obtain several documents which could not be procured in time. However, it is not denied that the appeal was filed on 17.04.2023 and then an application was filed on 08.11.2023 for placing on record the additional documents.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT] held that the delay beyond the period of 15 days cannot be condoned by the Tribunal and even under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which makes the provision very stringent and lays responsibility on the Appellant to be vigilant enough to file the appeal within the prescribed period. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there are no merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed - The application for seeking condonation of delay in re-filing has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed.
Condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and for condonation of delay of 162 in refiling the appeal - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appeal has been filed on the last date i.e. 15th day i.e. 45th day. The reason given in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay appears to be a halfhearted attempt on the part of the Appellant for condonation the delay of 15 days because it is mentioned therein that the appellant took time for procuring relevant documents and as such the counsel for the Appellant could not receive instructions on time - the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli, [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT] held that the delay beyond the period of 15 days cannot be condoned by the Tribunal and even under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which makes the provision very stringent and lays responsibility on the Appellant to be vigilant enough to file the appeal within the prescribed period - there are no merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1219
CIRP - Validity of order of liquidation - Rejection of resolution plan - eligibility criteria - Resolution Plan not considered by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) - bank guarantee furnished with delay of 3 days as the last date of submission of bank guarantee was 1st March 2021 - submission of bank guarantee of ICICI bank as against the bank guarantee which should have been issued from nationalised bank located in India - ineligibility u/s 29 A of IBC.
HELD THAT:- This Appellate Tribunal is of considered opinion that terms and conditions as stipulated in RFRP are required to be treated valid and legal binding terms and conditions which has been stipulated by the CoC after fair deal of deliberations. The framing of such terms and conditions, evaluation of the Resolution Plan against such matrix is considered to be entirely within the commercial wisdom domain of the CoC.
After analysing the facts in the appeal in details in provisions paragraphs, it is held that the Appellant failed to comply with the conditions as stipulated in RFRP - there are no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority since, there are no error in the Impugned Order.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1218
Approval of Resolution Plan - Appellant are personal guarantors of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Plan does not absolve the personal guarantors from their guarantee. The law well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of LALIT KUMAR JAIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2021 (5) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT], that by approval of resolution plan the guarantees are not ipso facto discharged. The resolution applicant has taken liability of only one crore, the other liabilities of the personal guarantors are not discharged.
There are no ground to interfere with the approval resolution plan within meaning of Section 61 - the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan need not be interfered - there is no merit in the Appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1217
Maintainability of section 7 application - time limitation - dispute raised regarding the liability of the Corporate Debtor towards the Financial Creditors and the guarantee by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- This is one such case in which direction has to be issued to the Tribunal to admit the application filed under Section 7 of the Code in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 25.03.2022 wherein it has been held that the debt and default both are present in this case but the Tribunal did not admit the application only on the issue that the Application was found to be barred by limitation. The question of limitation was taken to the higher court and ultimately it has been proved that the application was within the limitation. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should not have gone in for further investigating on the issue as to whether there is debt and default in the present case for the purpose of admission of the application.
The Tribunal is directed to admit the application filed by the Appellant on the next date of hearing and pass further necessary orders in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1176
Maintainability of section 7 application - nearly two years have gone by in the interregnum - HELD THAT:- After the application under Section 7 is heard and disposed of on merits, should it become necessary to do so, the parties would be at liberty to take recourse to all appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. At that stage, should it become so necessary, this Court will enquire into both the merits and maintainability. However, we also clarify that the issue of maintainability shall stand concluded by the impugned order dated 17 November 2023 insofar as the National Company Law Tribunal “NCLT” and NCLAT is concerned.
Since the application under Section 7 is pending for over two years, the NCLT is requested to take up the application at the earliest possible date and to endeavour an expeditious disposal within two months.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1175
Deed of Compromise/settlement dated 04.10.2023 entered into by respondent no. 1 – Rustagi Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant – Anuj Sharma, is taken on record - Parties will be bound by the terms and conditios mentioned in the Deed of Compromise/settlement dated 04.10.2023.
However, the appellant – Anuj Sharma/respondent no. 1 – Rustagi Projects Pvt. Ltd. shall pay the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs, as may be determined by the National Company Law Tribunal. In the event the costs are not paid, it will be open to the adjudicating authority/NCLT to take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1174
Liquidation Order - whether issuance of Form-G decision cannot be taken by CoC to liquidate the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- On looking into the resolution passed by the Committee of Creditors, CoC has given reasons as to that there are no employees, no business, no registered office, no filing of annual account of the MCA since 31.03.2011, no returns and no transactions since 2017. The scheme of the IBC as delineated by Section 33 sub section 2 empower of Committee of Creditors to take a decision to liquidate after constitution of Committee of Creditors.
It is true that the decisions of the CoC to liquidate has to be with reasons and that cannot be arbitrarily done but in the present case when looked into the resolution of the CoC it is clear that there was objective consideration by the CoC for taking a decision to liquidate.
Since SLP having been dismissed and review having also dismissed on the said submission the hearing of the appeal cannot be adjourned. It goes without saying that any order passed by Hon’ble Supreme court is binding by this tribunal and Adjudicating Authority, in event any such order is passed in the Curative Petition - in view of the order which we are passing in this appeal the subsequent application has become infractuous and has to be closed.
The order passed by Adjudicating Authority dated 31.08.2023 is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1173
Seeking issuance of fresh Form G - Resolution Applicant has submitted his revised plan - Resolution Professional in the Information Memorandum has also mentioned about dispute regarding the property - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has taken in consideration the fact that properties shall come to the kitty of the Corporate Debtor, whose value is much more than the entire plan value submitted by the Resolution Applicant, hence, order was issued for issuance of Form G - the observation of the Adjudicating Authority as made in Para 19, 20 and 21 of the impugned order, agreed upon, which was sufficient reason for issuance of fresh Form G. However, we are of the view that some time ought to have been fixed by the Adjudicating Authority for completion of the entire process - while affirming order of the Adjudicating Authority, further direction is given that entire process including consideration of Resolution Plan shall be completed within a period of three months from today.
The present is not a case where the Adjudicating Authority has directed for any valuation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Present is a case where during the CIRP process under the orders of the High Court of Delhi properties worth value of approx. Rs.3 Crores have been added to the assets of the Corporate Debtor on basis of which the Adjudicating Authority took the view that fresh Form G should be issued so that interested Resolution Applicants may know that the value of the Corporate Debtor has increased.
It goes without saying that the Appellant shall be entitled to submit his Expression of Interest in response to Form G issued by the Resolution Professional - appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1172
Initiation of CIRP - authentication of default as contemplated in Regulation 21, not taken - information of default not filed with the information utility - HELD THAT:- In the present case no authentication of the default having been obtained by the Financial Creditor, application under Section 7 was not liable to be admitted. The Adjudicating Authority committed error in admitting Section 7 application without there being any authentication of default as per Regulations 2017.
Whether application filed by the Financial Creditor deserves to be rejected on account of non-filing of record of default with information utility? - HELD THAT:- Regulation 20(1A) cannot be read to mean that after the said amendment brought in regulation w.e.f 14.06.2022 an application filed under Section 7 which is not supported by information of default from an information utility is to be rejected and if the Financial Creditor has filed other evidence to prove default which is contemplated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the said application has not to be considered - even after amendment of Regulation 20 by insertion of Regulation 20(1A) w.e.f 14.06.2022, Financial Creditor is entitled to file evidence of record of default as contemplated by Regulation 2A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 r/w Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - there are no substance in the submission of the Appellant that since Financial Creditor has not filed the record of default from an information utility, Section 7 deserves to be rejected - the Adjudicating Authority has correctly repelled the contention of the Appellant that in absence of a record of default recorded by information utility, the application filed under Section 7 may not be admitted.
Nidhi Kumar was fully empowered to nominate, constitute and appoint any one as lawful attorney of the bank at New Delhi. Pawan Sharma himself was Senior Manager, Zonal Stressed Assets Recovery Branch - there are no error in filing the application duly signed by Pawan Sharma supported by Affidavit of Pawan Sharma and submission of the Appellant that NCLT has no jurisdiction to entertain application filed by Pawan Sharma is to be rejected.
There are no substance in any of the submissions raised by the Counsel for the Appellant to interfere with the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority - There is no merit in the Appeal - appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
