The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 against the order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench-IV, New Delhi, in C.P. No. IB-218(PB)/2018. The appellant sought to call for the records from the Adjudicating Authority and to set aside the impugned final order/judgment dated 03.06.2021.
Sh. Anshdeep Chaddha, the promoter/shareholder of Chowdhry Rubbers & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench-IV, New Delhi. S.E.Power Ltd. (Respondent No.1) had filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority claiming Rs. 8,42,863/- for goods supplied between 29.02.2016 and 09.08.2016. Chowdhry Rubbers & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.2) responded to the demand notice, citing disputes regarding the quality of goods, adjustment of costs, and pending commissions. Despite the dispute, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the application. The Appellant contended that the Respondent No.1 increased the claim amount to Rs. 16,22,682/-. The Appellant also stated that they had
…Sign in to view the parties.
Goods supplied by…
Goods supplied by…
The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 against the order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench-IV, New Delhi, in C.P. No. IB-218(PB)/2018. The appellant sought to call for the records from the Adjudicating Authority and to set aside the impugned final order/judgment dated 03.06.2021.
Sh. Anshdeep Chaddha, the promoter/shareholder of Chowdhry Rubbers & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench-IV, New Delhi. S.E.Power Ltd. (Respondent No.1) had filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority claiming Rs. 8,42,863/- for goods supplied between 29.02.2016 and 09.08.2016. Chowdhry Rubbers & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.2) responded to the demand notice, citing disputes regarding the quality of goods, adjustment of costs, and pending commissions. Despite the dispute, the Adjudicating Authority admitted the application. The Appellant contended that the Respondent No.1 increased the claim amount to Rs. 16,22,682/-. The Appellant also stated that they had
…Goods supplied by…
Goods supplied by…