An application was moved by the Operational Creditor to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the Corporate Debtor, IBA/1428/2019. The petition was admitted on 2021-02-24, and Mr. C. Prabakaran was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The reason for seeking withdrawal is that the amount claimed from the Corporate Debtor by the Applicant has been duly remitted subsequent to the initiation of the CIRP.
Rasi Electrodes Ltd initiated CIRP against Balsara Engineering Products Pvt Ltd under IBA/1428/2019. The petition was admitted on 2021-02-24, and Mr. C. Prabakaran was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Subsequently, the applicant sought to withdraw the CIRP because the amount claimed from the Corporate Debtor had been remitted. The IRP filed an affidavit stating that no charges had been incurred because a settlement had been reached between the parties. No CoC was constituted. The applicant relied on Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd., & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (2019) of SCC 17.
Sign in to view the parties.
The petition was admitted, and Mr. C.…
The IRP filed an affidavit stating that no…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
An application was moved by the Operational Creditor to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the Corporate Debtor, IBA/1428/2019. The petition was admitted on 2021-02-24, and Mr. C. Prabakaran was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The reason for seeking withdrawal is that the amount claimed from the Corporate Debtor by the Applicant has been duly remitted subsequent to the initiation of the CIRP.
Rasi Electrodes Ltd initiated CIRP against Balsara Engineering Products Pvt Ltd under IBA/1428/2019. The petition was admitted on 2021-02-24, and Mr. C. Prabakaran was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Subsequently, the applicant sought to withdraw the CIRP because the amount claimed from the Corporate Debtor had been remitted. The IRP filed an affidavit stating that no charges had been incurred because a settlement had been reached between the parties. No CoC was constituted. The applicant relied on Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd., & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (2019) of SCC 17.
The petition was admitted, and Mr. C.…
The IRP filed an affidavit stating that no…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.