This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 652 of 2024 filed against an order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench Court VI, which appointed a Resolution Professional on a Section 95 application filed by the Financial Creditor. The appellant challenges the order, arguing that the demand notice was not served and an OTS proposal is under consideration. The Financial Creditor refuted this submission, stating that there are no OTS under consideration.
Parimal Chandra Dhar filed an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai Bench) on 2023-12-13. The order appointed a Resolution Professional based on a Section 95 application by the Financial Creditor, Small Industries Development Bank of India. The appellant, Parimal Chandra Dhar, argued that a demand notice was not served and that an OTS proposal was under consideration. The Financial Creditor refuted this claim. The appeal was filed under Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 652 of 2024.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law…
The Supreme Court decided the case of 'Dilip…
This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 652 of 2024 filed against an order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench Court VI, which appointed a Resolution Professional on a Section 95 application filed by the Financial Creditor. The appellant challenges the order, arguing that the demand notice was not served and an OTS proposal is under consideration. The Financial Creditor refuted this submission, stating that there are no OTS under consideration.
Parimal Chandra Dhar filed an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai Bench) on 2023-12-13. The order appointed a Resolution Professional based on a Section 95 application by the Financial Creditor, Small Industries Development Bank of India. The appellant, Parimal Chandra Dhar, argued that a demand notice was not served and that an OTS proposal was under consideration. The Financial Creditor refuted this claim. The appeal was filed under Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 652 of 2024.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law…
The Supreme Court decided the case of 'Dilip…