The case involves an application filed by the Petitioner, Shri Anil Kheterpal, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, Innovari Technologies Pvt. Limited, for default in payment of Rs. 50,95,927/- related to travel bookings. The petitioner claims to have provided travel services to the Corporate Debtor, for which payment was not made.
Shri Anil Kheterpal, the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, seeking to initiate CIRP against Innovari Technologies Pvt. Limited, the corporate debtor. The claim is based on a default of Rs. 50,95,927/- for travel services provided to the corporate debtor. The petitioner sent a demand notice dated 05.12.2018 to the corporate debtor's registered office via post and email. The postal notice was returned with the endorsement 'Addressee left'. However, the email notice was considered served. The corporate debtor did not reply to the demand notice or make any payment. The petitioner also served notice of the proceedings, but the corporate debtor did not appear before the Tribunal. The unpaid invoices and balance amount were presented to the
…Sign in to view the parties.
The petitioner sent a demand notice to the…
The Tribunal directed…
The case involves an application filed by the Petitioner, Shri Anil Kheterpal, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, Innovari Technologies Pvt. Limited, for default in payment of Rs. 50,95,927/- related to travel bookings. The petitioner claims to have provided travel services to the Corporate Debtor, for which payment was not made.
Shri Anil Kheterpal, the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, seeking to initiate CIRP against Innovari Technologies Pvt. Limited, the corporate debtor. The claim is based on a default of Rs. 50,95,927/- for travel services provided to the corporate debtor. The petitioner sent a demand notice dated 05.12.2018 to the corporate debtor's registered office via post and email. The postal notice was returned with the endorsement 'Addressee left'. However, the email notice was considered served. The corporate debtor did not reply to the demand notice or make any payment. The petitioner also served notice of the proceedings, but the corporate debtor did not appear before the Tribunal. The unpaid invoices and balance amount were presented to the
…The petitioner sent a demand notice to the…
The Tribunal directed…