The case was initially admitted under Section 9 of the IBC 2016 based on an order dated 2017-07-31. However, the Calcutta High Court, in Writ Petition No. 21465 (W) of 2017, set aside the NCLT's order and granted additional time for the respondent to file a reply. The NCLT was directed to hear the case by 2017-08-31. The case was taken up following the High Court's order.
The case was initially admitted under Section 9 of the IBC 2016. The Calcutta High Court set aside the NCLT's order in Writ Petition No. 21465 (W) of 2017, granting the respondent more time to reply. The NCLT was directed to rehear the case by 2017-08-31. The counsels informed the court that a settlement was reached. The petitioner's counsel requested to withdraw the petition based on the settlement terms. This settlement is a key fact because it led to the withdrawal of the petition and the resolution of the dispute.
Sign in to view the parties.
The case was initially…
The Calcutta High Court set aside the NCLT's…
The case was initially admitted under Section 9 of the IBC 2016 based on an order dated 2017-07-31. However, the Calcutta High Court, in Writ Petition No. 21465 (W) of 2017, set aside the NCLT's order and granted additional time for the respondent to file a reply. The NCLT was directed to hear the case by 2017-08-31. The case was taken up following the High Court's order.
The case was initially admitted under Section 9 of the IBC 2016. The Calcutta High Court set aside the NCLT's order in Writ Petition No. 21465 (W) of 2017, granting the respondent more time to reply. The NCLT was directed to rehear the case by 2017-08-31. The counsels informed the court that a settlement was reached. The petitioner's counsel requested to withdraw the petition based on the settlement terms. This settlement is a key fact because it led to the withdrawal of the petition and the resolution of the dispute.
The case was initially…
The Calcutta High Court set aside the NCLT's…