The case involves a Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.188/2023 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. The appellant, Mr. Sukakumar Puvi, sought relief related to an interim order dated 11.07.2023. The respondent, Ms. Pavitra Vyas, sought clarification of the interim order. The appellant requested additional time to deposit an amount related to the interim order, which was seen as an admission of non-compliance.
Mr. Sukakumar Puvi, the appellant, is the Suspended Director of Kavi Protein and Feed Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Pavitra Vyas, the respondent, is the RP of Kavi Protein and Feed Pvt. Ltd. The case concerns Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.188/2023. The respondent sought clarification of an interim order dated 11.07.2023. The appellant requested additional time to deposit an amount related to the interim order. The court considered the appellant's request as an admission of non-compliance with the interim order. The respondent's counsel requested that the application be treated as a stay vacation application. The court noted that the interim order had not been complied with within a reasonable timeframe. The Tribunal fixed 02.01.2025 for hearing of the matter.
Sign in to view the parties.
Date of the Interim…
Company Appeal…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves a Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.188/2023 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. The appellant, Mr. Sukakumar Puvi, sought relief related to an interim order dated 11.07.2023. The respondent, Ms. Pavitra Vyas, sought clarification of the interim order. The appellant requested additional time to deposit an amount related to the interim order, which was seen as an admission of non-compliance.
Mr. Sukakumar Puvi, the appellant, is the Suspended Director of Kavi Protein and Feed Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Pavitra Vyas, the respondent, is the RP of Kavi Protein and Feed Pvt. Ltd. The case concerns Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.188/2023. The respondent sought clarification of an interim order dated 11.07.2023. The appellant requested additional time to deposit an amount related to the interim order. The court considered the appellant's request as an admission of non-compliance with the interim order. The respondent's counsel requested that the application be treated as a stay vacation application. The court noted that the interim order had not been complied with within a reasonable timeframe. The Tribunal fixed 02.01.2025 for hearing of the matter.
Date of the Interim…
Company Appeal…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.