The case involves three I.B. Petitions (CP(IB) No. 35/2018, CP(IB) No. 36/2018, and CP(IB) No. 37/2018) filed by different financial creditors against the same corporate debtor, M/s. Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd., under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The financial creditors sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The petitions were heard together due to common facts and similar issues raised. The corporate debtor opposed the petitions, claiming that there was no default and that the petitions were filed to harass the company due to family disputes. The corporate debtor also argued that the claims were barred by limitation and that the object of the Code is revival, not recovery of dues.
Mr. Krashin V. Thummar, Mr. Popatbhai P. Thummar, and Mr. J. M. Kathrotiya, the financial creditors, filed petitions against M/s. Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd., the corporate debtor, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The financial creditors claimed that they had invested money in the corporate debtor company, which was treated as unsecured loans/deposits, and that the corporate debtor had defaulted in repayment. The corporate debtor argued that there was no default, that the claims were barred by limitation, and that the petitions were filed to harass the company due to family disputes. The corporate debtor also contended that it was a healthy and profit-making company. The financial creditors had issued cheques towards unsecured loan to the
…Sign in to view the parties.
Financial Creditors invested money in the…
Financial Creditors issued legal notices to…
The case involves three I.B. Petitions (CP(IB) No. 35/2018, CP(IB) No. 36/2018, and CP(IB) No. 37/2018) filed by different financial creditors against the same corporate debtor, M/s. Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd., under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The financial creditors sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The petitions were heard together due to common facts and similar issues raised. The corporate debtor opposed the petitions, claiming that there was no default and that the petitions were filed to harass the company due to family disputes. The corporate debtor also argued that the claims were barred by limitation and that the object of the Code is revival, not recovery of dues.
Mr. Krashin V. Thummar, Mr. Popatbhai P. Thummar, and Mr. J. M. Kathrotiya, the financial creditors, filed petitions against M/s. Cosmos Technocast Pvt. Ltd., the corporate debtor, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The financial creditors claimed that they had invested money in the corporate debtor company, which was treated as unsecured loans/deposits, and that the corporate debtor had defaulted in repayment. The corporate debtor argued that there was no default, that the claims were barred by limitation, and that the petitions were filed to harass the company due to family disputes. The corporate debtor also contended that it was a healthy and profit-making company. The financial creditors had issued cheques towards unsecured loan to the
…Financial Creditors invested money in the…
Financial Creditors issued legal notices to…