JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (Plaintiff) claimed unpaid fees for services rendered to M. A. LEASING AND CONSRUCTION PVT. LTD. (Defendant No. 1) and its directors (Defendant Nos. 2-4). The Plaintiff issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to Defendant No. 1, which was replied to. Subsequently, the Plaintiff initiated a proceeding under Section 9 of IBC before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). On September 10, 2023, the NCLT dismissed the Section 9 application, finding a pre-existing dispute between the parties. Following this dismissal, the Plaintiff filed the instant civil suit, seeking the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to exclude the time spent in the NCLT
…Plaintiff rendered certain services to the defendants and claims unpaid price/fees from them.
Defendant no. 1 allegedly received and accepted the services provided by the plaintiff.
Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of defendant no. 1.
On November 29, 2019, the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to defendant no. 1 for unpaid price/fees.
By a letter dated December 12, 2019, defendant no. 1 replied to the demand notice.
On July 29, 2020, the plaintiff instituted a proceeding under Section 9 of IBC before the Jurisdictional National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
On September 10, 2023, the NCLT dismissed the Section 9 application, holding that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
…Sign in to view the parties.
The date when the cause…
Plaintiff issued a notice under Section 8 of the…
JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (Plaintiff) claimed unpaid fees for services rendered to M. A. LEASING AND CONSRUCTION PVT. LTD. (Defendant No. 1) and its directors (Defendant Nos. 2-4). The Plaintiff issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to Defendant No. 1, which was replied to. Subsequently, the Plaintiff initiated a proceeding under Section 9 of IBC before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). On September 10, 2023, the NCLT dismissed the Section 9 application, finding a pre-existing dispute between the parties. Following this dismissal, the Plaintiff filed the instant civil suit, seeking the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to exclude the time spent in the NCLT
…Plaintiff rendered certain services to the defendants and claims unpaid price/fees from them.
Defendant no. 1 allegedly received and accepted the services provided by the plaintiff.
Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of defendant no. 1.
On November 29, 2019, the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to defendant no. 1 for unpaid price/fees.
By a letter dated December 12, 2019, defendant no. 1 replied to the demand notice.
On July 29, 2020, the plaintiff instituted a proceeding under Section 9 of IBC before the Jurisdictional National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
On September 10, 2023, the NCLT dismissed the Section 9 application, holding that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
…The date when the cause…
Plaintiff issued a notice under Section 8 of the…