The case pertains to CP(IB) No. 40/Chd/HP/2021 filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioner is Micro Laminations Pvt. Ltd., the operational creditor, and the respondent is AG Appliances Pvt. Ltd., the corporate debtor. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the present petition has become infructuous because another Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) petition, CP(IB) No. 223/Chd/HP/2020; Smt. Kanika Dandona Vs. AG Appliances Private Limited, against the same corporate debtor has already been admitted by the Tribunal. The petitioner has already filed its claim before the Resolution Professional in the admitted CIRP.
Micro Laminations Pvt. Ltd. filed CP(IB) No. 40/Chd/HP/2021 against AG Appliances Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, as an operational creditor. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, submitted that the petition had become infructuous. This was because another CIRP petition, CP(IB) No. 223/Chd/HP/2020; Smt. Kanika Dandona Vs. AG Appliances Private Limited, against the same corporate debtor, AG Appliances Pvt. Ltd., had already been admitted by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 2021-06-18. Furthermore, Micro Laminations Pvt. Ltd. had already filed its claim before the Resolution Professional in the admitted CIRP. The relevance of these facts is that the existence of an already admitted CIRP against the same corporate debtor renders the
…Sign in to view the parties.
CP(IB) No. 223/Chd/HP/2020; Smt. Kanika…
The court disposed of…
The case pertains to CP(IB) No. 40/Chd/HP/2021 filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioner is Micro Laminations Pvt. Ltd., the operational creditor, and the respondent is AG Appliances Pvt. Ltd., the corporate debtor. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the present petition has become infructuous because another Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) petition, CP(IB) No. 223/Chd/HP/2020; Smt. Kanika Dandona Vs. AG Appliances Private Limited, against the same corporate debtor has already been admitted by the Tribunal. The petitioner has already filed its claim before the Resolution Professional in the admitted CIRP.
Micro Laminations Pvt. Ltd. filed CP(IB) No. 40/Chd/HP/2021 against AG Appliances Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, as an operational creditor. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, submitted that the petition had become infructuous. This was because another CIRP petition, CP(IB) No. 223/Chd/HP/2020; Smt. Kanika Dandona Vs. AG Appliances Private Limited, against the same corporate debtor, AG Appliances Pvt. Ltd., had already been admitted by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 2021-06-18. Furthermore, Micro Laminations Pvt. Ltd. had already filed its claim before the Resolution Professional in the admitted CIRP. The relevance of these facts is that the existence of an already admitted CIRP against the same corporate debtor renders the
…CP(IB) No. 223/Chd/HP/2020; Smt. Kanika…
The court disposed of…