The Operational Creditor filed an application (IA/943/2021) under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, seeking to modify the order dated 12.02.2021 to the extent of the name of the IRP in para 22 of the said Order. The IRP's name was not initially proposed in the main application, but a subsequent application (IA/164/2021) filed on 13.01.2021 proposed the name. This subsequent application was heard on 18.01.2021, and it was ordered that the averment made in the application would be considered at the time of passing the Order.
Varun Shuttering Store, the Applicant/Petitioner, filed an application IA/943/2021 seeking modification of the order dated 12.02.2021. The modification pertains to the name of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in para 22 of the order. The initial application did not propose an IRP. Subsequently, an application IA/164/2021 was filed on 13.01.2021 proposing the name of the IRP. IA/164/2021 was heard on 18.01.2021, and it was ordered that the averment made in the application would be considered when passing the order. The applicant proposed Mr. Anil Tayal as the IRP. The existing IRP, Ms. Sunita Umesh, was to be replaced. The court considered the submissions and averments made in the application and the order dated 18.01.2021 passed in IA/164/2021. The name of the
…Sign in to view the parties.
The main appli…
An application…
The Operational Creditor filed an application (IA/943/2021) under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, seeking to modify the order dated 12.02.2021 to the extent of the name of the IRP in para 22 of the said Order. The IRP's name was not initially proposed in the main application, but a subsequent application (IA/164/2021) filed on 13.01.2021 proposed the name. This subsequent application was heard on 18.01.2021, and it was ordered that the averment made in the application would be considered at the time of passing the Order.
Varun Shuttering Store, the Applicant/Petitioner, filed an application IA/943/2021 seeking modification of the order dated 12.02.2021. The modification pertains to the name of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in para 22 of the order. The initial application did not propose an IRP. Subsequently, an application IA/164/2021 was filed on 13.01.2021 proposing the name of the IRP. IA/164/2021 was heard on 18.01.2021, and it was ordered that the averment made in the application would be considered when passing the order. The applicant proposed Mr. Anil Tayal as the IRP. The existing IRP, Ms. Sunita Umesh, was to be replaced. The court considered the submissions and averments made in the application and the order dated 18.01.2021 passed in IA/164/2021. The name of the
…The main appli…
An application…