The present company (I & B) petition was fixed for pronouncement of the order in respect of C.P. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of 2017 as these petitions are based on same / similar nature of facts hence are being disposed of though a common order. The applications were found complete in terms of Section 9(5)(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Several operational creditors filed petitions against Lakshmi Solvent Pvt Ltd under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for non-payment of outstanding dues. The corporate debtor, Lakshmi Solvent Pvt Ltd, had allegedly defaulted on payments to multiple operational creditors, including M/s J.R. Agro Industries Private Limited, M/s Abhi Agro Industries Private Limited, M/s Jai Lakshmi Solvents Private Limited, M/s Arohul Foods Private Limited, and M/s. Rungata Industries Private Limited. The invoices for payment were raised by the operational creditors, and goods were delivered to the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor claimed that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) existed with Mr. Dinesh Arora, which affected the payment obligations. However, the
…Sign in to view the parties.
The order…
C.P. Nos. 13, 14, 15,…
The present company (I & B) petition was fixed for pronouncement of the order in respect of C.P. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of 2017 as these petitions are based on same / similar nature of facts hence are being disposed of though a common order. The applications were found complete in terms of Section 9(5)(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Several operational creditors filed petitions against Lakshmi Solvent Pvt Ltd under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for non-payment of outstanding dues. The corporate debtor, Lakshmi Solvent Pvt Ltd, had allegedly defaulted on payments to multiple operational creditors, including M/s J.R. Agro Industries Private Limited, M/s Abhi Agro Industries Private Limited, M/s Jai Lakshmi Solvents Private Limited, M/s Arohul Foods Private Limited, and M/s. Rungata Industries Private Limited. The invoices for payment were raised by the operational creditors, and goods were delivered to the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor claimed that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) existed with Mr. Dinesh Arora, which affected the payment obligations. However, the
…The order…
C.P. Nos. 13, 14, 15,…