The case involves an appeal against the admission of an application by the Adjudicating Authority, despite pre-existing disputes. The appellant, Shipra Hotels Ltd., argues that the admission of the application causes irreparable damage and seeks immediate protection. The appellant offers to protect the interest of the Operational Creditor by keeping an amount of Rs. 42,58,844/- in an Escrow account.
Shipra Hotels Ltd. filed an appeal against the admission of an application by the Adjudicating Authority, arguing that pre-existing disputes were not considered. The appellant claimed that the admission of the application would cause irreparable damage and sought immediate protection. To protect the interest of the Operational Creditor, the appellant offered to keep Rs. 42,58,844/- in an Escrow account. The Adjudicating Authority's order dated 01.06.2018 was passed in CP(IB) 25/ALD/2018. The appellant's counsel argued that the disputes predate the notice under Section 8 or the application under Section 9. The court acknowledged the urgency of the matter.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating…
The case was mentioned in court, and the…
The case involves an appeal against the admission of an application by the Adjudicating Authority, despite pre-existing disputes. The appellant, Shipra Hotels Ltd., argues that the admission of the application causes irreparable damage and seeks immediate protection. The appellant offers to protect the interest of the Operational Creditor by keeping an amount of Rs. 42,58,844/- in an Escrow account.
Shipra Hotels Ltd. filed an appeal against the admission of an application by the Adjudicating Authority, arguing that pre-existing disputes were not considered. The appellant claimed that the admission of the application would cause irreparable damage and sought immediate protection. To protect the interest of the Operational Creditor, the appellant offered to keep Rs. 42,58,844/- in an Escrow account. The Adjudicating Authority's order dated 01.06.2018 was passed in CP(IB) 25/ALD/2018. The appellant's counsel argued that the disputes predate the notice under Section 8 or the application under Section 9. The court acknowledged the urgency of the matter.
The Adjudicating…
The case was mentioned in court, and the…