The case involves an appeal against an order dated 2022-04-11 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, which admitted an application filed under Section 9 of the 'I&B Code' by the Respondent No.1. An I.A No. 1464 of 2022 was filed with a Settlement Agreement dated 2022-05-10, indicating that the parties had settled the matter and the Respondent No.1 sought permission to withdraw the application.
Rajan Mayor filed an appeal against Eternity Footwear Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. The appeal contested an order dated 2022-04-11 by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, which admitted an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code filed by Respondent No. 1. During the appeal process, a settlement agreement dated 2022-05-10 was presented, indicating that the parties had resolved the matter. The appellant's counsel stated that the IRP had been paid Rs. 2 Lakh, with expenses limited to publication. The IRP's counsel confirmed publication expenses and a visit to the CAG office. The court determined that the IRP could retain Rs. 1 Lakh and return the remaining Rs. 1 Lakh.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The court stayed…
The case involves an appeal against an order dated 2022-04-11 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, which admitted an application filed under Section 9 of the 'I&B Code' by the Respondent No.1. An I.A No. 1464 of 2022 was filed with a Settlement Agreement dated 2022-05-10, indicating that the parties had settled the matter and the Respondent No.1 sought permission to withdraw the application.
Rajan Mayor filed an appeal against Eternity Footwear Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. The appeal contested an order dated 2022-04-11 by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, which admitted an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code filed by Respondent No. 1. During the appeal process, a settlement agreement dated 2022-05-10 was presented, indicating that the parties had resolved the matter. The appellant's counsel stated that the IRP had been paid Rs. 2 Lakh, with expenses limited to publication. The IRP's counsel confirmed publication expenses and a visit to the CAG office. The court determined that the IRP could retain Rs. 1 Lakh and return the remaining Rs. 1 Lakh.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
The court stayed…