The case involves an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi) which rejected an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the grounds of maintainability. The appellant, an operational creditor, had filed the application against three respondents, with M/s Ace Pipeline Contracts Pvt. Ltd. as Respondent No. 2. During the hearing, the appellant confined the CIRP to Respondent No. 2. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application because Respondent No. 2 was situated outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Aaishwary Construction, the appellant and an operational creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC against three respondents, including M/s Ace Pipeline Contracts Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2). The appellant later confined the CIRP to Respondent No. 2. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi) rejected the application because Respondent No. 2 was situated outside its territorial jurisdiction. The appellant appealed this decision to the NCLAT. The key fact is the location of Respondent No. 2 outside the jurisdiction of the NCLT, which formed the basis for the rejection of the application.
Sign in to view the parties.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant was heard,…
The appellant filed an application under…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi) which rejected an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the grounds of maintainability. The appellant, an operational creditor, had filed the application against three respondents, with M/s Ace Pipeline Contracts Pvt. Ltd. as Respondent No. 2. During the hearing, the appellant confined the CIRP to Respondent No. 2. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application because Respondent No. 2 was situated outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Aaishwary Construction, the appellant and an operational creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC against three respondents, including M/s Ace Pipeline Contracts Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2). The appellant later confined the CIRP to Respondent No. 2. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi) rejected the application because Respondent No. 2 was situated outside its territorial jurisdiction. The appellant appealed this decision to the NCLAT. The key fact is the location of Respondent No. 2 outside the jurisdiction of the NCLT, which formed the basis for the rejection of the application.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant was heard,…
The appellant filed an application under…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.