The appeal was filed by Seema Gupta, claiming to be an operational creditor, against an order dated March 10, 2017, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench. The NCLT rejected the appellant's application for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant argued that the application under Section 9 should not be rejected based on technicalities, as an earlier notice was issued under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, which provided for a 21-day statutory period, as opposed to the 10-day notice period under Section 8 of the I&B Code.
Seema Gupta, claiming to be an operational creditor, filed an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, dated March 10, 2017, which rejected her application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant argued that the rejection based on the technicality of not issuing a notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code was incorrect, as a prior notice had been issued under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. This earlier notice provided for a 21-day statutory period, while Section 8 of the I&B Code requires a 10-day notice period. The NCLT rejected the application because the mandatory notice under Section 8 of
…Sign in to view the parties.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)…
Appellate Tribunal vide judgement dated 3rd…
The appeal was filed by Seema Gupta, claiming to be an operational creditor, against an order dated March 10, 2017, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench. The NCLT rejected the appellant's application for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant argued that the application under Section 9 should not be rejected based on technicalities, as an earlier notice was issued under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, which provided for a 21-day statutory period, as opposed to the 10-day notice period under Section 8 of the I&B Code.
Seema Gupta, claiming to be an operational creditor, filed an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, dated March 10, 2017, which rejected her application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appellant argued that the rejection based on the technicality of not issuing a notice under Section 8 of the I&B Code was incorrect, as a prior notice had been issued under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. This earlier notice provided for a 21-day statutory period, while Section 8 of the I&B Code requires a 10-day notice period. The NCLT rejected the application because the mandatory notice under Section 8 of
…The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)…
Appellate Tribunal vide judgement dated 3rd…