The case involves an appeal against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against ESS DEE Aluminium Limited. The appellant, a shareholder of ESS DEE Aluminium Limited, filed the appeal citing a delay and contesting the service of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). The Adjudicating Authority had admitted the application filed by the Operational Creditor, leading to the CIRP initiation. The appellant argued that the demand notice was not served at the correct address, as the corporate debtor's office had moved to Mumbai. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's application for recalling the order.
The 1st Respondent- ‘Operational Creditor' filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘I&B Code') for initiation of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against ESS DEE Aluminium Limited’- (‘Corporate Debtor'). The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application. The Shareholder of ‘ESS DEE Aluminium Limited'- (‘Corporate Debtor') filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority for recalling of the said order on one of the grounds that notice under Section 8(1) of the ‘I&B Code' was actually not served on the ‘Corporate Debtor'. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application. The Appellant contended that the office of the ‘Corporate Debtor' was not functioning in the Kolkata address and was functioning at
…Sign in to view the parties.
Adjudicating Authority admitted the application…
Adjudicating Authority rejected the…
The case involves an appeal against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against ESS DEE Aluminium Limited. The appellant, a shareholder of ESS DEE Aluminium Limited, filed the appeal citing a delay and contesting the service of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). The Adjudicating Authority had admitted the application filed by the Operational Creditor, leading to the CIRP initiation. The appellant argued that the demand notice was not served at the correct address, as the corporate debtor's office had moved to Mumbai. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's application for recalling the order.
The 1st Respondent- ‘Operational Creditor' filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘I&B Code') for initiation of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against ESS DEE Aluminium Limited’- (‘Corporate Debtor'). The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application. The Shareholder of ‘ESS DEE Aluminium Limited'- (‘Corporate Debtor') filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority for recalling of the said order on one of the grounds that notice under Section 8(1) of the ‘I&B Code' was actually not served on the ‘Corporate Debtor'. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application. The Appellant contended that the office of the ‘Corporate Debtor' was not functioning in the Kolkata address and was functioning at
…Adjudicating Authority admitted the application…
Adjudicating Authority rejected the…