The appeals were filed against an order dated 2023-02-09 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court II, which allowed applications filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to substitute itself in place of the Administrator who had filed applications under Sections 43, 44, and 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appeals challenge the substitution of the SRA, arguing that the applications under Sections 43 and 44 were filed subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Two appeals were filed against an order dated 2023-02-09 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Mumbai, allowing the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to substitute itself for the Administrator in applications filed under Sections 43, 44, and 66 of the IBC. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 475-476 of 2023, the appellant argued that the applications under Sections 43 and 44 were filed after the Resolution Plan's approval by the CoC, making the substitution inappropriate. The appellant also claimed that the Resolution Plan did not provide for the SRA to prosecute these applications. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 488 of 2023, the appellant argued that they could not file a claim because a copy of the plan was not provided and that they had a right to set
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The Appellate Tribunal issued a judgment in…
The appeals were filed against an order dated 2023-02-09 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court II, which allowed applications filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to substitute itself in place of the Administrator who had filed applications under Sections 43, 44, and 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appeals challenge the substitution of the SRA, arguing that the applications under Sections 43 and 44 were filed subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Two appeals were filed against an order dated 2023-02-09 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Mumbai, allowing the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to substitute itself for the Administrator in applications filed under Sections 43, 44, and 66 of the IBC. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 475-476 of 2023, the appellant argued that the applications under Sections 43 and 44 were filed after the Resolution Plan's approval by the CoC, making the substitution inappropriate. The appellant also claimed that the Resolution Plan did not provide for the SRA to prosecute these applications. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 488 of 2023, the appellant argued that they could not file a claim because a copy of the plan was not provided and that they had a right to set
…The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The Appellate Tribunal issued a judgment in…