The case involves a petition seeking to quash a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and an order dated October 30, 2021, summoning the petitioners for offenses under Sections 31(1), 74(3), and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Petitioner No. 1 had filed an application in insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, where a Resolution Plan was approved in their favor. However, they failed to comply with the terms of the plan and deposit the required funds. Applications were filed before the NCLT, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court, with various orders passed. Despite efforts and an offer to pay ₹20 Crores, the Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 74(3) of the IBC, leading to
…Krish Steel and Trading Private Limited, the petitioner, initiated insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, where a resolution plan was approved in its favor. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the resolution plan, leading to applications before the NCLT, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court. Despite efforts to comply, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 74(3) of the IBC. The Special Judge summoned not only the company (petitioner No. 1) but also its promoters and directors (petitioners No. 2, 3, and 4). The petitioners sought to quash the complaint, arguing that Section 74(3) of the IBC does not impose vicarious liability. The NCLAT's decision in 'Committee of Creditors
…Sign in to view the parties.
The learned Special Judge passed an order…
The Court exempts petitioners No. 2, 3, and 4…
The case involves a petition seeking to quash a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and an order dated October 30, 2021, summoning the petitioners for offenses under Sections 31(1), 74(3), and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Petitioner No. 1 had filed an application in insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, where a Resolution Plan was approved in their favor. However, they failed to comply with the terms of the plan and deposit the required funds. Applications were filed before the NCLT, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court, with various orders passed. Despite efforts and an offer to pay ₹20 Crores, the Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 74(3) of the IBC, leading to
…Krish Steel and Trading Private Limited, the petitioner, initiated insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, where a resolution plan was approved in its favor. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the resolution plan, leading to applications before the NCLT, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court. Despite efforts to comply, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 74(3) of the IBC. The Special Judge summoned not only the company (petitioner No. 1) but also its promoters and directors (petitioners No. 2, 3, and 4). The petitioners sought to quash the complaint, arguing that Section 74(3) of the IBC does not impose vicarious liability. The NCLAT's decision in 'Committee of Creditors
…The learned Special Judge passed an order…
The Court exempts petitioners No. 2, 3, and 4…