The case involves an appeal filed by Shaw Traders against Balaji Paper & Newsprint Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application based on a decision by the Supreme Court in the case of 'Mobilox Innovation Private Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Private Ltd.' The 'Corporate Debtor' had sent a notice of dispute. The registry pointed out that the appeal was barred by limitation.
Shaw Traders filed an appeal against Balaji Paper & Newsprint Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority rejected Shaw Traders' application, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Mobilox Innovation Private Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Private Ltd.' as the basis for the rejection. A notice of dispute had been sent by the 'Corporate Debtor'. The Registry also noted that the appeal was barred by limitation. Despite multiple opportunities, Shaw Traders failed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the bar of limitation and the appellant's default as reasons for the dismissal. The Supreme Court case is relevant because it likely established a
…Sign in to view the parties.
The appeal was taken…
The case was adjourned…
The case involves an appeal filed by Shaw Traders against Balaji Paper & Newsprint Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application based on a decision by the Supreme Court in the case of 'Mobilox Innovation Private Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Private Ltd.' The 'Corporate Debtor' had sent a notice of dispute. The registry pointed out that the appeal was barred by limitation.
Shaw Traders filed an appeal against Balaji Paper & Newsprint Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority rejected Shaw Traders' application, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Mobilox Innovation Private Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Private Ltd.' as the basis for the rejection. A notice of dispute had been sent by the 'Corporate Debtor'. The Registry also noted that the appeal was barred by limitation. Despite multiple opportunities, Shaw Traders failed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the bar of limitation and the appellant's default as reasons for the dismissal. The Supreme Court case is relevant because it likely established a
…The appeal was taken…
The case was adjourned…