M/s. Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd., an operational creditor, filed C.P. (IB) No.50/BB/2017 under Section 8&9 of the IBC, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Camson Bio Technologies Limited for a default of Rs. 1,92,23,466/-. The case was listed for admission on multiple dates between July 2017 and May 2019.
M/s. Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd. filed an application C.P. (IB) No.50/BB/2017 under Section 8&9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Camson Bio Technologies Limited. The application was based on an alleged default of Rs. 1,92,23,466/-. The case was listed for admission on various dates spanning from July 12, 2017, to May 30, 2019. However, neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared before the Tribunal on several of these dates. The Tribunal noted this absence and eventually dismissed the case for default due to non-prosecution. The consistent absence of the petitioner suggests a lack of interest in pursuing the matter, leading to the dismissal.
Sign in to view the parties.
The case was i…
The case was li…
M/s. Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd., an operational creditor, filed C.P. (IB) No.50/BB/2017 under Section 8&9 of the IBC, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Camson Bio Technologies Limited for a default of Rs. 1,92,23,466/-. The case was listed for admission on multiple dates between July 2017 and May 2019.
M/s. Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd. filed an application C.P. (IB) No.50/BB/2017 under Section 8&9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Camson Bio Technologies Limited. The application was based on an alleged default of Rs. 1,92,23,466/-. The case was listed for admission on various dates spanning from July 12, 2017, to May 30, 2019. However, neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared before the Tribunal on several of these dates. The Tribunal noted this absence and eventually dismissed the case for default due to non-prosecution. The consistent absence of the petitioner suggests a lack of interest in pursuing the matter, leading to the dismissal.
The case was i…
The case was li…