The case involves an appeal against an order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant and Respondent No. 1 both submitted resolution plans as Resolution Applicants. The Resolution Professional opened the resolution plans. Respondent No. 1 filed an application seeking to reverse the process followed for submission of final resolution plans and allow all Resolution Applicants to negotiate with the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority partly allowed the application.
Shrinivas Spintex Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and Hinganghat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents) are parties in a CIRP. Both the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 submitted resolution plans as Resolution Applicants. The Resolution Professional opened the resolution plans. Respondent No. 1 filed an application seeking to reverse the process followed for submission of final resolution plans and allow all Resolution Applicants to negotiate with the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority partly allowed the application. The Appellant argues that the application filed by Respondent No. 1 was allowed without notice to other Resolution Applicants, and only the Resolution Professional was heard. The Appellant contends that the Resolution Plan should be opened by the Resolution
…Sign in to view the parties.
Voting on…
Respondent No.…
The case involves an appeal against an order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant and Respondent No. 1 both submitted resolution plans as Resolution Applicants. The Resolution Professional opened the resolution plans. Respondent No. 1 filed an application seeking to reverse the process followed for submission of final resolution plans and allow all Resolution Applicants to negotiate with the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority partly allowed the application.
Shrinivas Spintex Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and Hinganghat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents) are parties in a CIRP. Both the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 submitted resolution plans as Resolution Applicants. The Resolution Professional opened the resolution plans. Respondent No. 1 filed an application seeking to reverse the process followed for submission of final resolution plans and allow all Resolution Applicants to negotiate with the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority partly allowed the application. The Appellant argues that the application filed by Respondent No. 1 was allowed without notice to other Resolution Applicants, and only the Resolution Professional was heard. The Appellant contends that the Resolution Plan should be opened by the Resolution
…Voting on…
Respondent No.…