The writ petition challenges the legality and validity of an order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench-I, which dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, a suspended director of M/s. Guruprabha Power Limited (corporate debtor), sought a review of the order directing liquidation and initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The petitioner contended that the application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was barred by limitation. The NCLT had initially admitted the application filed by Punjab National Bank (Respondent No. 2) under Section 7 of the IBC, initiating CIRP against the corporate debtor. The corporate
…M/s. Guruprabha Power Limited (corporate debtor) approached Punjab National Bank (respondent No. 2) for financial assistance. Respondent No. 2 sanctioned a Rupee Term Loan-I of Rs. 28,88,40,000-00 and a Rupee Term Loan-II of Rs. 4,35,30,000-00, along with a cash credit limit of Rs. 6,50,00,000-00. The corporate debtor faced financial difficulties and defaulted on payments to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 declared the loan account as a non-performing asset (NPA) on 31.05.2007 and issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 27.06.2011. The corporate debtor approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing securitization application No. 259 of 2011. The DRT ordered the corporate debtor to deposit Rs. 1.27 crores with respondent No. 2 to enable
…Sign in to view the parties.
Respondent No. 2 declared the loan account of…
Respondent No. 2 issued…
The writ petition challenges the legality and validity of an order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench-I, which dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, a suspended director of M/s. Guruprabha Power Limited (corporate debtor), sought a review of the order directing liquidation and initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The petitioner contended that the application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was barred by limitation. The NCLT had initially admitted the application filed by Punjab National Bank (Respondent No. 2) under Section 7 of the IBC, initiating CIRP against the corporate debtor. The corporate
…M/s. Guruprabha Power Limited (corporate debtor) approached Punjab National Bank (respondent No. 2) for financial assistance. Respondent No. 2 sanctioned a Rupee Term Loan-I of Rs. 28,88,40,000-00 and a Rupee Term Loan-II of Rs. 4,35,30,000-00, along with a cash credit limit of Rs. 6,50,00,000-00. The corporate debtor faced financial difficulties and defaulted on payments to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 declared the loan account as a non-performing asset (NPA) on 31.05.2007 and issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 27.06.2011. The corporate debtor approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing securitization application No. 259 of 2011. The DRT ordered the corporate debtor to deposit Rs. 1.27 crores with respondent No. 2 to enable
…Respondent No. 2 declared the loan account of…
Respondent No. 2 issued…