The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Hyderabad Bench, which admitted an application preferred by the Respondent-'Operational Creditor' under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that a dispute existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code. The Adjudicating Authority appointed an Interim Resolution Professional without suggestion from the Operational Creditor or the Board. The respondent appeared and accepted that the Interim Resolution Professional was not appointed on their suggestion. The parties reached a settlement in writing.
A sub-contract works agreement was reached between Sandeep Reddy & Anr. (appellants) and Jaycon Infrastructure Ltd. (respondent). The scheduled completion date for the works was December 31, 2012, based on an agreement dated April 19, 2011. The appellant claimed the respondent failed to complete the works by that date. The respondent continued the works until May 2014, completing only 78% of the agreement value and then allegedly abandoned the works. The Adjudicating Authority admitted an application by the respondent (Operational Creditor) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that a dispute existed before the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code. An Interim Resolution Professional was
…Sign in to view the parties.
Date of the…
Scheduled completion…
The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Hyderabad Bench, which admitted an application preferred by the Respondent-'Operational Creditor' under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that a dispute existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code. The Adjudicating Authority appointed an Interim Resolution Professional without suggestion from the Operational Creditor or the Board. The respondent appeared and accepted that the Interim Resolution Professional was not appointed on their suggestion. The parties reached a settlement in writing.
A sub-contract works agreement was reached between Sandeep Reddy & Anr. (appellants) and Jaycon Infrastructure Ltd. (respondent). The scheduled completion date for the works was December 31, 2012, based on an agreement dated April 19, 2011. The appellant claimed the respondent failed to complete the works by that date. The respondent continued the works until May 2014, completing only 78% of the agreement value and then allegedly abandoned the works. The Adjudicating Authority admitted an application by the respondent (Operational Creditor) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant argued that a dispute existed before the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code. An Interim Resolution Professional was
…Date of the…
Scheduled completion…