Asian Minerals filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against New Vardhman Vitrified Private Ltd for unpaid operational debt. The petitioner claimed Rs. 80,56,472/- towards goods supplied, supported by a demand notice dated 20.11.2018. The respondent argued that there was inter se rivalry and the petition was filed with malafide intentions to take revenge.
Asian Minerals, a partnership firm, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate CIRP against New Vardhman Vitrified Private Ltd for an unpaid operational debt of Rs. 80,56,472/-. The petitioner claimed to have supplied goods to the corporate debtor and issued a demand notice dated 20.11.2018. The respondent argued that the petitioner and the corporate debtor are related and there is inter se rivalry between them, leading to several complaints and FIRs. The respondent also pointed out that the demand notice was issued by an advocate without proper authorization. The respondent further submitted that the petition was filed with mala fide intentions to take revenge. The petitioner is represented by Shri Rajeshbhai Mavjibhai
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Petitioner issued a Demand Notice for…
The NCLT delivered the…
Asian Minerals filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against New Vardhman Vitrified Private Ltd for unpaid operational debt. The petitioner claimed Rs. 80,56,472/- towards goods supplied, supported by a demand notice dated 20.11.2018. The respondent argued that there was inter se rivalry and the petition was filed with malafide intentions to take revenge.
Asian Minerals, a partnership firm, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate CIRP against New Vardhman Vitrified Private Ltd for an unpaid operational debt of Rs. 80,56,472/-. The petitioner claimed to have supplied goods to the corporate debtor and issued a demand notice dated 20.11.2018. The respondent argued that the petitioner and the corporate debtor are related and there is inter se rivalry between them, leading to several complaints and FIRs. The respondent also pointed out that the demand notice was issued by an advocate without proper authorization. The respondent further submitted that the petition was filed with mala fide intentions to take revenge. The petitioner is represented by Shri Rajeshbhai Mavjibhai
…The Petitioner issued a Demand Notice for…
The NCLT delivered the…