The case involves an appeal against an order dated 2024-01-24, which admitted a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant disputed the invoices on which the Section 9 application was filed but expressed readiness to deposit the claimed amount without prejudice to their rights. An interim order was passed on 2024-02-01.
Murtaza Hamza Kothawala filed an appeal against an order dated 2024-01-24, which admitted a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Kothawala disputed the invoices but offered to deposit Rs. 35,26,597/-. An interim order was passed on 2024-02-01. Later, both parties settled the dispute outside the court, leading to Respondent No. 1 agreeing to withdraw the claim. An I.A. No. 2530 of 2024 was filed to record the settlement. The key fact is the out-of-court settlement, which influenced the court's decision to set aside the impugned order and terminate the CIRP.
Sign in to view the parties.
Order passed a…
Interim order passed…
The case involves an appeal against an order dated 2024-01-24, which admitted a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant disputed the invoices on which the Section 9 application was filed but expressed readiness to deposit the claimed amount without prejudice to their rights. An interim order was passed on 2024-02-01.
Murtaza Hamza Kothawala filed an appeal against an order dated 2024-01-24, which admitted a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Kothawala disputed the invoices but offered to deposit Rs. 35,26,597/-. An interim order was passed on 2024-02-01. Later, both parties settled the dispute outside the court, leading to Respondent No. 1 agreeing to withdraw the claim. An I.A. No. 2530 of 2024 was filed to record the settlement. The key fact is the out-of-court settlement, which influenced the court's decision to set aside the impugned order and terminate the CIRP.
Order passed a…
Interim order passed…