The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which admitted an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) filed by URGO Capital Ltd. against A.ES Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The application pertained to a default in payment related to a Master Facility Loan Agreement. The NCLAT initially stayed the NCLT's order. The appellant argued that the transaction was a bill discounting arrangement, not a loan, and that the NCLT failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The respondent contended that it was a supply chain finance loan and that the NCLT's order was correct. The appeal was later dismissed as infructuous.
1. URGO Capital Ltd. filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC against A.ES Engineers Pvt. Ltd., claiming default under a Master Facility Loan Agreement.
2. The NCLT admitted the application, declared a moratorium, and appointed an IRP.
3. A.ES Engineers Pvt. Ltd. appealed the NCLT's order, arguing that the transaction was a bill discounting arrangement, not a loan.
4. The appellant, A.ES Engineers, supplied goods to Kiran Udyog Private Limited.
5. URGO Capital was to make payments after bills were cleared by Kiran Udyog Private Limited.
6. The financial creditor, URGO Capital, initiated proceedings under Section 7 against A.ES Engineers as a corporate debtor.
7. The appellant claimed to have received payments for the supplied goods.
8. Both parties had initiated
Sign in to view the parties.
The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,…
The Tribunal passed an…
The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which admitted an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) filed by URGO Capital Ltd. against A.ES Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The application pertained to a default in payment related to a Master Facility Loan Agreement. The NCLAT initially stayed the NCLT's order. The appellant argued that the transaction was a bill discounting arrangement, not a loan, and that the NCLT failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The respondent contended that it was a supply chain finance loan and that the NCLT's order was correct. The appeal was later dismissed as infructuous.
1. URGO Capital Ltd. filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC against A.ES Engineers Pvt. Ltd., claiming default under a Master Facility Loan Agreement.
2. The NCLT admitted the application, declared a moratorium, and appointed an IRP.
3. A.ES Engineers Pvt. Ltd. appealed the NCLT's order, arguing that the transaction was a bill discounting arrangement, not a loan.
4. The appellant, A.ES Engineers, supplied goods to Kiran Udyog Private Limited.
5. URGO Capital was to make payments after bills were cleared by Kiran Udyog Private Limited.
6. The financial creditor, URGO Capital, initiated proceedings under Section 7 against A.ES Engineers as a corporate debtor.
7. The appellant claimed to have received payments for the supplied goods.
8. Both parties had initiated
The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,…
The Tribunal passed an…