9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Adjudicating Authority without taking into consideration the evidence that the demand notice under Section 8(1) was never served on the Corporate Debtor, we set aside the impugned order dated 14th June, 2018. The case is not remitted parties have settled the claim. In effect, order(s) passed by the Adjudicating Authority appointing ‘Resolution Professional’, declaring moratorium, freez ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate ORDER This appeal has been preferred by Shareholder and Ex-Director of M/s Soho Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) against order dated 14th June, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi (Court No. IV), whereby the application preferred by the Respondent M/s Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. (Operational Creditor) under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not in dispute and evidence is also on record to show that the demand notice under section 8(1) notice was never served on the Corporate Debtor. 4. On 27th August, 2018, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that if the demand notice under Section 8(1) would have been served on the Corporate Debtor, the parties would have settled the matter. It was als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Adjudicating Authority appointing Resolution Professional , declaring moratorium, freezing of account, and all other order(s) passed pursuant to impugned order and action taken by the Resolution Professional , including the advertisement published in the newspaper calling for applications and actions are declared illegal and are set aside. The application preferred by Respondent un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
