The case involves CP No.(IB) 342/ALD/2018, IA No. 224/2021, and IA No. 169/2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The hearing took place on December 7th, 2021. The case involves Bank of Baroda V/S M/S Baghauli Sugar & Distillery Ltd. Respondent no. 8 is IBBI which is not a necessary party in these proceedings. Therefore, IBBI is hereby dropped from the array of parties. List this matter after completion of pleadings on 25.01.2022.
The case involves CP No.(IB) 342/ALD/2018, IA No. 224/2021, and IA No. 169/2021. Bank of Baroda is in a dispute with M/S Baghauli Sugar & Distillery Ltd. Several respondents are involved, including IFCI Limited acting on behalf of the Government of India- Sugar Development Fund (R7). Respondents 1 to 4 have filed reply affidavits. R7 sought time to file a reply affidavit, which was granted. R5 and R6, who are banks, did not file reply affidavits despite being served and were set ex parte. IBBI (R8) was deemed not a necessary party and was dropped from the proceedings. The applicant's counsel submitted that salary and wages have been paid up to June 2021, and the RP's counsel stated that continued payments would be made as funds are released by the CoC Members. The
…Sign in to view the parties.
Hearing held on…
Matter to be listed…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves CP No.(IB) 342/ALD/2018, IA No. 224/2021, and IA No. 169/2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The hearing took place on December 7th, 2021. The case involves Bank of Baroda V/S M/S Baghauli Sugar & Distillery Ltd. Respondent no. 8 is IBBI which is not a necessary party in these proceedings. Therefore, IBBI is hereby dropped from the array of parties. List this matter after completion of pleadings on 25.01.2022.
The case involves CP No.(IB) 342/ALD/2018, IA No. 224/2021, and IA No. 169/2021. Bank of Baroda is in a dispute with M/S Baghauli Sugar & Distillery Ltd. Several respondents are involved, including IFCI Limited acting on behalf of the Government of India- Sugar Development Fund (R7). Respondents 1 to 4 have filed reply affidavits. R7 sought time to file a reply affidavit, which was granted. R5 and R6, who are banks, did not file reply affidavits despite being served and were set ex parte. IBBI (R8) was deemed not a necessary party and was dropped from the proceedings. The applicant's counsel submitted that salary and wages have been paid up to June 2021, and the RP's counsel stated that continued payments would be made as funds are released by the CoC Members. The
…Hearing held on…
Matter to be listed…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.