The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi, rejected the claim due to the existence of a dispute.
The Appellant, Xionn Services Pvt. Ltd., filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application due to the existence of a dispute. The Respondent had raised concerns about the quality of work performed by the Appellant, specifically regarding waterproofing, in replies dated 26th December, 2015, and 8th January, 2016. The Appellant's counsel argued that a letter dated 8th May, 2010, should have led to the admission of the matter for resolution. The NCLAT condoned a 15-day delay in filing the appeal but ultimately dismissed it.
Sign in to view the parties.
Appellant's counsel referred to a letter dated…
Respondent raised a dispute relating to the…
The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi, rejected the claim due to the existence of a dispute.
The Appellant, Xionn Services Pvt. Ltd., filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application due to the existence of a dispute. The Respondent had raised concerns about the quality of work performed by the Appellant, specifically regarding waterproofing, in replies dated 26th December, 2015, and 8th January, 2016. The Appellant's counsel argued that a letter dated 8th May, 2010, should have led to the admission of the matter for resolution. The NCLAT condoned a 15-day delay in filing the appeal but ultimately dismissed it.
Appellant's counsel referred to a letter dated…
Respondent raised a dispute relating to the…