Three separate insolvency petitions (CP(IB) No. 35/2018, 36/2018, and 37/2018) were filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by individual financial creditors (Krashin V. Thummar, Popatbhai P. Thummar, and J.M. Kathrotiya) against Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd. The financial creditors sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The creditors claimed that the corporate debtor defaulted on repayment of deposits/unsecured loans made by them. The corporate debtor opposed the petitions, arguing that there was no default, the claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act, and the petitions were filed to harass the company due to family disputes.
1. Three separate insolvency petitions were filed by Krashin V. Thummar, Popatbhai P. Thummar, and J.M. Kathrotiya against Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd.
2. The petitioners claimed to be financial creditors who had provided unsecured loans/deposits to the corporate debtor.
3. Krashin V. Thummar claimed to have invested Rs. 3,00,000 in the corporate debtor in 2006-2007, with an agreed interest rate of 2% per month. He served legal notices on 20.07.2017 and 11.10.2017, and the corporate debtor issued cheques for Rs. 4,75,000, but Krashin did not encash cheque no. 008788 dated 17.02.2017 for Rs. 75,206 due to a dispute over the interest rate. He calculated the total amount due as Rs. 23,03,321.
4. Popatbhai P. Thummar claimed to have invested Rs. 3,50,000 in the corporate
Sign in to view the parties.
The financial creditors filed petitions under…
The Corporate Debtor filed its objection…
Three separate insolvency petitions (CP(IB) No. 35/2018, 36/2018, and 37/2018) were filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by individual financial creditors (Krashin V. Thummar, Popatbhai P. Thummar, and J.M. Kathrotiya) against Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd. The financial creditors sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The creditors claimed that the corporate debtor defaulted on repayment of deposits/unsecured loans made by them. The corporate debtor opposed the petitions, arguing that there was no default, the claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act, and the petitions were filed to harass the company due to family disputes.
1. Three separate insolvency petitions were filed by Krashin V. Thummar, Popatbhai P. Thummar, and J.M. Kathrotiya against Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd.
2. The petitioners claimed to be financial creditors who had provided unsecured loans/deposits to the corporate debtor.
3. Krashin V. Thummar claimed to have invested Rs. 3,00,000 in the corporate debtor in 2006-2007, with an agreed interest rate of 2% per month. He served legal notices on 20.07.2017 and 11.10.2017, and the corporate debtor issued cheques for Rs. 4,75,000, but Krashin did not encash cheque no. 008788 dated 17.02.2017 for Rs. 75,206 due to a dispute over the interest rate. He calculated the total amount due as Rs. 23,03,321.
4. Popatbhai P. Thummar claimed to have invested Rs. 3,50,000 in the corporate
The financial creditors filed petitions under…
The Corporate Debtor filed its objection…