Naresh Sundarlal Jain filed a writ petition (No. 11982 of 2023) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that vacated an attachment order passed by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioner, an unsecured creditor, claimed that the NCLT order jeopardized his interests by pushing him to the bottom of the creditor list under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). He argued that he was not a party to the NCLT proceedings and was unaware of the order until recently.
Naresh Sundarlal Jain, the petitioner, lent money to Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent no. 1) for a project in Udaipur. An attachment order was issued, but later vacated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Jain claimed he was unaware of the NCLT order and that his interests as an unsecured creditor were jeopardized under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Respondent no. 1 argued that Jain was aware of the NCLT order, as evidenced by an ex-director's attempt to appeal the order. The ex-director's appeal was dismissed by NCLAT due to excessive delay. Jain did not file an appeal before NCLAT within the limitation period. The properties of Respondent no. 1 are situated in Rajasthan, but the registered address of the company is in Mumbai. The
…Sign in to view the parties.
NCLAT dismissed the application for…
Oral judgment delivered…
Naresh Sundarlal Jain filed a writ petition (No. 11982 of 2023) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that vacated an attachment order passed by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioner, an unsecured creditor, claimed that the NCLT order jeopardized his interests by pushing him to the bottom of the creditor list under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). He argued that he was not a party to the NCLT proceedings and was unaware of the order until recently.
Naresh Sundarlal Jain, the petitioner, lent money to Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent no. 1) for a project in Udaipur. An attachment order was issued, but later vacated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Jain claimed he was unaware of the NCLT order and that his interests as an unsecured creditor were jeopardized under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Respondent no. 1 argued that Jain was aware of the NCLT order, as evidenced by an ex-director's attempt to appeal the order. The ex-director's appeal was dismissed by NCLAT due to excessive delay. Jain did not file an appeal before NCLAT within the limitation period. The properties of Respondent no. 1 are situated in Rajasthan, but the registered address of the company is in Mumbai. The
…NCLAT dismissed the application for…
Oral judgment delivered…