Several appeals were filed against AMR Infrastructure Ltd. by different appellants claiming to be either 'Financial Creditors' or 'Operational Creditors'. These appeals arose from petitions initially filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Delhi High Court, which were later transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) following amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). The NCLT dismissed the applications of the appellants, leading to the appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). A related case involving Nikhil Mehta and Sons, claiming to be a 'Financial Creditor', was initially dismissed by the NCLT but was later overturned by the NCLAT, which directed the NCLT to admit their
…Rubina Chadha & Anr., Sajive Kanwar, and Mukesh Kumar & Anr. filed appeals against AMR Infrastructure Ltd., claiming to be creditors. Rubina Chadha & Anr. initially filed a petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Delhi High Court, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. Sajive Kanwar claimed to be a 'Financial Creditor', while Mukesh Kumar & Anr. claimed to be 'Operational Creditors'. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) dismissed their applications. Nikhil Mehta and Sons also claimed to be 'Financial Creditors' and filed an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, which was initially dismissed by the NCLT but later overturned by the NCLAT. The NCLAT directed the NCLT to admit Nikhil Mehta and Sons' application and
…Sign in to view the parties.
The impugned judgement…
The Central Government notified an amended…
Several appeals were filed against AMR Infrastructure Ltd. by different appellants claiming to be either 'Financial Creditors' or 'Operational Creditors'. These appeals arose from petitions initially filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Delhi High Court, which were later transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) following amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). The NCLT dismissed the applications of the appellants, leading to the appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). A related case involving Nikhil Mehta and Sons, claiming to be a 'Financial Creditor', was initially dismissed by the NCLT but was later overturned by the NCLAT, which directed the NCLT to admit their
…Rubina Chadha & Anr., Sajive Kanwar, and Mukesh Kumar & Anr. filed appeals against AMR Infrastructure Ltd., claiming to be creditors. Rubina Chadha & Anr. initially filed a petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Delhi High Court, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. Sajive Kanwar claimed to be a 'Financial Creditor', while Mukesh Kumar & Anr. claimed to be 'Operational Creditors'. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) dismissed their applications. Nikhil Mehta and Sons also claimed to be 'Financial Creditors' and filed an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, which was initially dismissed by the NCLT but later overturned by the NCLAT. The NCLAT directed the NCLT to admit Nikhil Mehta and Sons' application and
…The impugned judgement…
The Central Government notified an amended…