9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is on the basis of the order of MSEFC dated 13.09.2021, which does not appropriately satisfy the demand raised by the appellant in Section 8 demand notice. Since there is a dispute in respect of the size of the claim between the Appellant and the Respondent, and if the Appellant feels that the directions given by the Hon ble NCLT, in its order dated 31.03.2021 to the respondent to settle the claim of the Appellant within three months has not been complied with, the Appellant can very well approach the Ld. NCLT with an appropriate application to redress his grievances including determination of the amount that needs to be paid by the Respondent for which the Ld. NCLT has already granted liberty. Since the issue involves consideration of evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome insolvent and therefore provisions of the I B Code cannot be invoked and accordingly disposed of the company petition directing the Respondent to settle the balance claim of the Petitioner/Appellant herein, as per the evidence available on record, within three months, failing which the petitioner is at the liberty to approach it in accordance with law. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder : 6. For the aforesaid reasons, circumstances of the case, and the Law on the issue, C.P. (IB) No.33/BB/2021 is hereby disposed of by directing the Respondent to settle the claim of the Petitioner, as per records and evidence available on record, within a period of three months from the date of receipt copy of this order, failing which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeding under Section 9 of I B Code, 2016 was being decided. She further submitted that, in pursuance to the impugned order of NCLT dated 31.03.2021 he has remitted an amount of Rs. 23,83,940/- to the Appellant in July 2021 and has finally settled matter as per directions of Ld. NCLT which has also been recorded in the order dated 13.09.2021 of MSEFC while dismissing the case. 4. The appellant has disputed the quantification of the amount payable, by the respondent and has contended that, the full amount as per the claim raised under Section 8 demand notice under I B Code, 2016 has not been remitted and that the amount deposited is on the basis of the order of MSEFC dated 13.09.2021, which does not appropriately satisfy the demand raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
