The case involves a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 283 of 2017 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi. The appeal was filed by India Cement Capital Ltd. against Jitendra Kumar Jain, an Insolvency Professional. The appeal was preferred under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against a letter sent in a mailbox dated 17th October 2017, which appeared to be a notice of information.
India Cement Capital Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against a letter sent in a mailbox dated 17th October 2017. The letter appeared to be a notice of information. The NCLAT considered the appeal defective and not maintainable under Section 61 of the IBC. The appellant's counsel was absent despite repeated calls. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The relevance of the date 2017-10-17 is that it is the date of the letter that triggered the appeal. The relevance of Section 61 is that the appeal was filed under this section, but the court found it not maintainable.
Sign in to view the parties.
A letter sent in a mailbox, appearing to be a…
The NCLAT dismissed the…
The case involves a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 283 of 2017 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi. The appeal was filed by India Cement Capital Ltd. against Jitendra Kumar Jain, an Insolvency Professional. The appeal was preferred under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against a letter sent in a mailbox dated 17th October 2017, which appeared to be a notice of information.
India Cement Capital Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against a letter sent in a mailbox dated 17th October 2017. The letter appeared to be a notice of information. The NCLAT considered the appeal defective and not maintainable under Section 61 of the IBC. The appellant's counsel was absent despite repeated calls. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The relevance of the date 2017-10-17 is that it is the date of the letter that triggered the appeal. The relevance of Section 61 is that the appeal was filed under this section, but the court found it not maintainable.
A letter sent in a mailbox, appearing to be a…
The NCLAT dismissed the…