The appeal challenges an order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai), which admitted an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Financial Creditor. The appellant contends that the Adjudicating Authority considered a rejoinder that was previously rejected by the court.
Narendra Rajani, the erstwhile director of Whiz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai). The order admitted an application filed by the Financial Creditor, Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority improperly considered a rejoinder that had been previously rejected by orders dated 08.07.2022 and 16.12.2022. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority's reference to the rejected rejoinder demonstrated a lack of due consideration of prior orders, rendering the impugned order flawed. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the two
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The prayer for filing…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The appeal challenges an order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai), which admitted an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Financial Creditor. The appellant contends that the Adjudicating Authority considered a rejoinder that was previously rejected by the court.
Narendra Rajani, the erstwhile director of Whiz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai). The order admitted an application filed by the Financial Creditor, Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority improperly considered a rejoinder that had been previously rejected by orders dated 08.07.2022 and 16.12.2022. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority's reference to the rejected rejoinder demonstrated a lack of due consideration of prior orders, rendering the impugned order flawed. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the two
…The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The prayer for filing…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.