The case involves an appeal against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Jord Engineers India Ltd. The CIRP was initially admitted under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) based on an application by Valia & Co. However, the order admitting the CIRP was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal because the notice under Section 8(1) was served through an advocate. The Supreme Court, in a related matter, addressed the validity of notices served by advocates. The Supreme Court then set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The key issue revolves around the validity of the notice issued by an advocate and the maintainability of the application under Section 9,
…Valia & Co. initiated CIRP against Jord Engineers India Ltd. under Section 9 of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application on 31.07.2017. The Appellate Tribunal set aside this order on 13.10.2017 because the notice under Section 8(1) was served through an advocate. The Supreme Court, in a related case (Macquarie Bank Limited Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited), clarified that a notice sent by an advocate on behalf of an operational creditor is valid. The Supreme Court then set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back. The Appellant (Jord Engineers India Ltd.) argued that the application was barred by limitation and that there was a dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied. The claim amount related to the period
…Sign in to view the parties.
Application under…
Appellate Tribunal set…
The case involves an appeal against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Jord Engineers India Ltd. The CIRP was initially admitted under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) based on an application by Valia & Co. However, the order admitting the CIRP was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal because the notice under Section 8(1) was served through an advocate. The Supreme Court, in a related matter, addressed the validity of notices served by advocates. The Supreme Court then set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The key issue revolves around the validity of the notice issued by an advocate and the maintainability of the application under Section 9,
…Valia & Co. initiated CIRP against Jord Engineers India Ltd. under Section 9 of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application on 31.07.2017. The Appellate Tribunal set aside this order on 13.10.2017 because the notice under Section 8(1) was served through an advocate. The Supreme Court, in a related case (Macquarie Bank Limited Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited), clarified that a notice sent by an advocate on behalf of an operational creditor is valid. The Supreme Court then set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back. The Appellant (Jord Engineers India Ltd.) argued that the application was barred by limitation and that there was a dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied. The claim amount related to the period
…Application under…
Appellate Tribunal set…