9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, 2016 ("CIRP Regulation"), by an Operational Creditor, namely, Reliance Communications and Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the Creditor') against a Corporate Debtor, namely, TVC Skyshop Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the Debtor'), on the ground that the Creditor has obtained a decree against the Debtor for an amount of Rs. 25,83,078.35/-, defaulted paying Rs. 25,83,078.35/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Seventy Eight and Thirty Five Paise Only). In view of the same, the Creditor herein filed this Petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against this Debtor. 2. The case of the Creditor is that it provided 54 mobile phone connections to the Debtor in the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 25,83,078.35 with further interest @30% p.a. from the date of suit and (b) costs. Despite due service of summons in September 2006, the Debtor did not file an application for leave to defend. Further there was no representative of the Debtor appeared on the date specified in the summons. On 7.11.2006, an order was passed by the learned Judge decreeing the suit in view of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allowing both the prayers. The order noted that the Debtor has no defence. 4. Aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit, the Debtor filed Notice of Motion praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 7.11.2006 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e. 'Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. The appellate Court's going into the documentary evidence, if such evidence have been found on record before the trial Court and that too without following the procedure prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not arise at all. In any case, the appellant having failed to seek leave to defend before the learned Single Judge in accordance with the law, the question of going into various contentions sought to be raised which essentially relate to the evidence does not arise, at this stage." 6. Thereafter, the Debtor preferred a Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2013 on the ground, inter alia, that the application filed by Debtor for set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby admits this petition filed under Section 9 of IBC, declaring moratorium with consequential directions as mentioned below: (a) That this Bench hereby prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
