M/s R Krishnamurthy & Co. filed a writ petition against the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and another respondent, challenging certain portions of an order dated 28th October, 2022, issued by the IBBI. The petitioner's grievance stems from allegations made by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner within the IBBI's order. The petitioner fears that these allegations, presented as submissions, could be misconstrued as findings against them, especially since the order is publicly accessible. The petitioner had initially filed a complaint against Respondent No. 2, who was appointed as a liquidator of M/s Pratibha Industries International Ltd. The IBBI, after considering the complaint and hearing Respondent No. 2, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-
…M/s R Krishnamurthy & Co. (the Petitioner) filed a complaint against Respondent No. 2, who was the liquidator of M/s Pratibha Industries International Ltd. The IBBI considered the complaint and imposed a penalty on Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by certain allegations made by Respondent No. 2 in the IBBI's order dated 28th October, 2022, fearing they could be misconstrued as findings against them. The Petitioner claims to be a government contractor and argues that the allegations are adversely affecting its commercial interests. The IBBI contends that the relevant paragraphs are merely submissions by Respondent No. 2, not findings of the Board. The Petitioner also alleges that the IBBI did not consider the allegations made by the Petitioner of
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Petitioner…
Date of the i…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
M/s R Krishnamurthy & Co. filed a writ petition against the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and another respondent, challenging certain portions of an order dated 28th October, 2022, issued by the IBBI. The petitioner's grievance stems from allegations made by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner within the IBBI's order. The petitioner fears that these allegations, presented as submissions, could be misconstrued as findings against them, especially since the order is publicly accessible. The petitioner had initially filed a complaint against Respondent No. 2, who was appointed as a liquidator of M/s Pratibha Industries International Ltd. The IBBI, after considering the complaint and hearing Respondent No. 2, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-
…M/s R Krishnamurthy & Co. (the Petitioner) filed a complaint against Respondent No. 2, who was the liquidator of M/s Pratibha Industries International Ltd. The IBBI considered the complaint and imposed a penalty on Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by certain allegations made by Respondent No. 2 in the IBBI's order dated 28th October, 2022, fearing they could be misconstrued as findings against them. The Petitioner claims to be a government contractor and argues that the allegations are adversely affecting its commercial interests. The IBBI contends that the relevant paragraphs are merely submissions by Respondent No. 2, not findings of the Board. The Petitioner also alleges that the IBBI did not consider the allegations made by the Petitioner of
…The Petitioner…
Date of the i…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.