The writ petition challenges the validity of Sections 95(1), 99, and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, arguing they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The case originates from an inter-corporate deposit agreement between a corporate debtor and Piramal Enterprise (respondent No. 2) executed on May 27, 2016. This agreement was later assigned to respondent No. 2 on September 22, 2016. Respondent No. 2 filed two applications under Section 95(1) of the IBC, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, seeking to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process. The National Company Law Tribunal
…An inter-corporate deposit agreement was executed between the Corporate debtor and the Perimal Enterprise (respondent No.2) on May 27, 2016. The agreement was assigned to respondent No.2 on September 22, 2016. Respondent No.2 filed two applications under Section 95(1) of the Code read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, seeking to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process. The National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore passed an interim moratorium order on November 11, 2021, against the petitioners and appointed respondent No.3 as a resolution professional under Section 97 of the Code. Notices were issued to the
…Sign in to view the parties.
Inter corporate deposit agreement was…
The aforesaid intra…
The writ petition challenges the validity of Sections 95(1), 99, and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, arguing they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The case originates from an inter-corporate deposit agreement between a corporate debtor and Piramal Enterprise (respondent No. 2) executed on May 27, 2016. This agreement was later assigned to respondent No. 2 on September 22, 2016. Respondent No. 2 filed two applications under Section 95(1) of the IBC, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, seeking to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process. The National Company Law Tribunal
…An inter-corporate deposit agreement was executed between the Corporate debtor and the Perimal Enterprise (respondent No.2) on May 27, 2016. The agreement was assigned to respondent No.2 on September 22, 2016. Respondent No.2 filed two applications under Section 95(1) of the Code read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, seeking to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process. The National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore passed an interim moratorium order on November 11, 2021, against the petitioners and appointed respondent No.3 as a resolution professional under Section 97 of the Code. Notices were issued to the
…Inter corporate deposit agreement was…
The aforesaid intra…