9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ’, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. For the said reasons also this Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to accept the settlement reached between the parties to annul the impugned order, though it is open to the Appellants to move before a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. As during the ‘Resolution Process’, the ‘Resolution Professional’ is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na, Advocates For The Respondent : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan and Vatsala Kak, Advocates ORDER This appeal has been preferred by Appellants against the order dated 24th November, 2017 passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company Petition No. (IB)-245(PB)/2017, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by 1st Respondent under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. It is a settled law that after admission of an application under Section 7 of the I B Code , the Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor or Corporate Applicant cannot withdraw the application even if a settlement has been made. The Adjudicating Authority once initiates the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process , has no jurisdiction to recall the order of admission dated 24th Novem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... move before a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. 6. After the order was dictated, learned Company Secretary appearing on behalf of the Appellants, requested to pass interim order of protection to enable the appellant to move before the Hon ble Supreme Court but as we are not interfering with the impugned order dated 24th November, 2017, the question of granting interim pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
