9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv., Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. And Mr. Anant Prakash, AOR For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Nayar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv., Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv., Mr. Vivek Jhunjhunwala, Adv., Mrs. Wamika Trehan, Adv., Ms. Maithili Moondra, Adv., Mr. Suryaksh Manot, Adv., Mr. Akshay Joshi, Adv. And M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issues before us, must be brought (sic) on record. For this purpose, and in exercise of the statutory powers conferred on the Adjudicating Authority under Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules 2016 and also under Section 424 of Companies Act 2013, for requiring the discovery and production of documents, it is deemed necessary to call for necessary documents from the CD, such as the Trial balance, Leger Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complied with by the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent has submitted that, as a matter of fact, the order was complied with, an e-filing receipt was issued and the appellant had even sought inspection of the documents which were filed. 7 The appellant had filed two interlocutory applications before the NCLT, namely, IA No 11 of 2020 for production of documents and IA No 12 of 2020 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a serious grievance on whether the order of the adjudicating authority for the production of documents was complied with. Production of documents was sought to establish that there was an acknowledgment of debt. 11 The impugned order of the NCLAT has not entered any finding of fact on whether there was compliance of the order for production of documents. Though it was urged by the respondent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
