The appeal was filed by an employee of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated July 10, 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court-III, New Delhi, whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Adjudicating Authority had previously granted two weeks to the petitioner to comply with an order dated April 15, 2019, but compliance was not achieved due to a change of lawyer. The Corporate Debtor's counsel brought to the Tribunal's notice that the petition was filed in 2018, and pleadings were complete. The petitioner had commenced arguments on April 15, 2019, and was directed to co-relate annexures and serve a Section 8 Notice within a week. The
…An employee of a Corporate Debtor filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application for non-prosecution on July 10, 2019. The dismissal occurred because the petitioner failed to comply with an earlier order dated April 15, 2019, within the two-week period granted. The petitioner cited a change of lawyer (Vakalatnama) as the reason for the delay. The Corporate Debtor's counsel pointed out that the petition was filed in 2018, pleadings were complete, and arguments had commenced on April 15, 2019, with directions to co-relate annexures and serve a Section 8 Notice. The Tribunal viewed the request for more time due to the change of Vakalatnama as a delaying tactic. The original order that
…Sign in to view the parties.
The petition w…
The petitioner…
The appeal was filed by an employee of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated July 10, 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court-III, New Delhi, whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Adjudicating Authority had previously granted two weeks to the petitioner to comply with an order dated April 15, 2019, but compliance was not achieved due to a change of lawyer. The Corporate Debtor's counsel brought to the Tribunal's notice that the petition was filed in 2018, and pleadings were complete. The petitioner had commenced arguments on April 15, 2019, and was directed to co-relate annexures and serve a Section 8 Notice within a week. The
…An employee of a Corporate Debtor filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application for non-prosecution on July 10, 2019. The dismissal occurred because the petitioner failed to comply with an earlier order dated April 15, 2019, within the two-week period granted. The petitioner cited a change of lawyer (Vakalatnama) as the reason for the delay. The Corporate Debtor's counsel pointed out that the petition was filed in 2018, pleadings were complete, and arguments had commenced on April 15, 2019, with directions to co-relate annexures and serve a Section 8 Notice. The Tribunal viewed the request for more time due to the change of Vakalatnama as a delaying tactic. The original order that
…The petition w…
The petitioner…