The case pertains to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 185 of 2017 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi. The appellant is Mahesh Kumar Panwar, and the respondent is Neelam Singh & Anr. The hearing on 09.03.2018 remained inconclusive, and the appellant was given time to present records showing the return of Rs. 9 lakhs to the respondent, Neelam Singh, as indicated in the Annual Return as of 31.03.2017. The tribunal noted agreements dated 06.10.2008 and 10.11.2008, finding prima facie that Neelam Singh is a financial creditor, and her case is covered under the Appellate Tribunal decision in Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) & Ors Vs AMR Infrastructure Ltd in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.7 of 2017.

The case pertains to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 185 of 2017 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi. The appellant is Mahesh Kumar Panwar, and the respondent is Neelam Singh & Anr. The hearing on 09.03.2018 remained inconclusive, and the appellant was given time to present records showing the return of Rs. 9 lakhs to the respondent, Neelam Singh, as indicated in the Annual Return as of 31.03.2017. The tribunal noted agreements dated 06.10.2008 and 10.11.2008, finding prima facie that Neelam Singh is a financial creditor, and her case is covered under the Appellate Tribunal decision in Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) & Ors Vs AMR Infrastructure Ltd in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.7 of 2017.