The case involves M/s Inox Leisure Ltd. as the petitioner and M/s A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking exclusion of a certain period from the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) timeline. The reason cited was that the initial order dated 12.12.2018 was not communicated to him in a timely manner, and he only became aware of it much later.
M/s Inox Leisure Ltd. initiated a case against M/s A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the IBC code 2016. An order was passed on 2018-12-12, but it was not communicated to the Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Anup Kumar Goyal, or the Corporate Debtor by the Registry. The RP became aware of the order much later and filed an application (CA-862/C-III/ND/2019) seeking exclusion of the period from 2018-12-12 until the date he became aware of the order. The court noted that the non-communication was due to inadvertence on the part of the Registry. The RP requested exclusion of time to ensure the CIRP could proceed effectively.
Sign in to view the parties.
The initial order was passed but not…
The court delivered the…
The case involves M/s Inox Leisure Ltd. as the petitioner and M/s A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking exclusion of a certain period from the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) timeline. The reason cited was that the initial order dated 12.12.2018 was not communicated to him in a timely manner, and he only became aware of it much later.
M/s Inox Leisure Ltd. initiated a case against M/s A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the IBC code 2016. An order was passed on 2018-12-12, but it was not communicated to the Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Anup Kumar Goyal, or the Corporate Debtor by the Registry. The RP became aware of the order much later and filed an application (CA-862/C-III/ND/2019) seeking exclusion of the period from 2018-12-12 until the date he became aware of the order. The court noted that the non-communication was due to inadvertence on the part of the Registry. The RP requested exclusion of time to ensure the CIRP could proceed effectively.
The initial order was passed but not…
The court delivered the…