The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which admitted a Section 9 application under the I&B Code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor settled their disputes after the order was passed, executing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
The Adjudicating Authority admitted a Section 9 application under the I&B Code, 2016. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor settled their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on April 29, 2023, involving a total amount of Rs. 28,80,651/-. The IRP incurred expenses of Rs. 1,05,807/-. The settlement agreement stipulated that parties would perform their part of the MoU. The Appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The relevance of the settlement is that it led to the disposal of the appeal.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority passed an order…
Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor…
The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which admitted a Section 9 application under the I&B Code, 2016. The Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor settled their disputes after the order was passed, executing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
The Adjudicating Authority admitted a Section 9 application under the I&B Code, 2016. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor settled their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on April 29, 2023, involving a total amount of Rs. 28,80,651/-. The IRP incurred expenses of Rs. 1,05,807/-. The settlement agreement stipulated that parties would perform their part of the MoU. The Appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The relevance of the settlement is that it led to the disposal of the appeal.
The Adjudicating Authority passed an order…
Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor…