9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent No. 2. Hence, this Application was made for deletion of Respondent No. 2. The instant Application is filed in accordance with extant provisions of Code, and the reasons for removal of Respondent No. 2 are convincing, and as agreed to by the Petitioner. Therefore, it would be just and proper to remove the Respondent No. 2 from the list of Respondents - petition disposed off. - I. A. No. 60 of 2021 in C. P. ( IB ) No. 200/BB/2020 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2021 - Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) And Ashutosh Chandra, Member (T) For the Appellant : T.S.R. Prasad, Adv. For the Respondents : Balakrishnan Prabhal, Adv. ORDER Ashutosh Chandra, Member (T) 1. I.A. No. 60 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No. 200/BB/2020 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication has not been duly signed by the Directors of the Petitioner, Application does not comply with the requirements of the Adjudicating Rules, etc. 3) It is also stated that the Petitioner has failed to furnish along with the present Petition an affidavit under Section 9(3) (b) of the IBC whereby the Petitioner is required to furnish an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the Corporate Debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt. 4) it is also stated that the present petition is not maintainable against the Respondent No. 2 because the Respondent No. 2 is not a party to the Business Transfer Agreement which is strictly between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1, that is the basis of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner about the Respondent No. 2. There is neither any allegation nor any claim made by the Petitioner in its application against Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with mala-fide intention to needlessly harass and victimize the Respondent No. 2. 9) The present Petition has been filed against two Respondents. If is to be noted that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to against which Respondent is the Petition demanding the alleged amount. 3. Heard Mr. TSR Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Balakrishnan Prabhal, learned Counsel for the Respondents. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the Party and the extant provisions of the Code, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication was made for deletion of Respondent No. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has no objection for removal of the Respondent No. 2 as the Respondent No. 2 is not a Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner. 7. We find that the instant Application is filed in accordance with extant provisions of Code, and we are convinced with the reasons cited above for removal of Respondent No. 2 in question, and as agreed to by the Petitioner. Therefore, it would be just and proper to remove the Respondent No. 2 from the list of Respondents, as prayed for. 8. In the result, I.A. No. 60 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No. 200/BB/2020 is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to modify the Petition, if it desires to pursue the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
