The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Single Bench Chennai, alleging that the 2nd Respondent, Mr. M. Poobalan, is a related party of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant argued that because the 2nd Respondent is a related party and also a Financial Creditor, they should not be a member of the Committee of Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority, after hearing the parties, rejected the claim in its order dated March 27, 2019, holding that the 2nd Respondent is not a related party. The Appellant then appealed this decision.
The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority alleging that the 2nd Respondent, Mr. M. Poobalan, is a related party of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant argued that the 2nd Respondent, being a Financial Creditor and a related party, should not be a member of the Committee of Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority rejected this claim, holding that the 2nd Respondent is not a related party. The Appellant appealed this decision, referring to an 'Agreement for appointment of administrative agency on profit sharing basis' dated December 20, 2012, to support their claim that the 2nd Respondent is an agent of the Corporate Debtor. The relevance of the agreement lies in establishing the relationship between the 2nd Respondent and
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the…
The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed…
The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Single Bench Chennai, alleging that the 2nd Respondent, Mr. M. Poobalan, is a related party of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant argued that because the 2nd Respondent is a related party and also a Financial Creditor, they should not be a member of the Committee of Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority, after hearing the parties, rejected the claim in its order dated March 27, 2019, holding that the 2nd Respondent is not a related party. The Appellant then appealed this decision.
The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority alleging that the 2nd Respondent, Mr. M. Poobalan, is a related party of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant argued that the 2nd Respondent, being a Financial Creditor and a related party, should not be a member of the Committee of Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority rejected this claim, holding that the 2nd Respondent is not a related party. The Appellant appealed this decision, referring to an 'Agreement for appointment of administrative agency on profit sharing basis' dated December 20, 2012, to support their claim that the 2nd Respondent is an agent of the Corporate Debtor. The relevance of the agreement lies in establishing the relationship between the 2nd Respondent and
…The Adjudicating Authority rejected the…
The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed…