The case was transferred from the Bombay High Court to the NCLT under Sections 433(e), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner, Lippi Systems Private Limited, did not appear on the listed date, August 14, 2017. There was no evidence of service of the petition and notice of demand on the respondent, Radha Madhav Corporation Limited. The court noted that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to appear. A notification dated June 29, 2017, allows parties to file fresh applications under sections 7, 8, or 9 of the IBC after July 15, 2017. The relevance of the notification is that it provides an alternative avenue for the petitioner to pursue their claim under the IBC despite the dismissal of the current petition.

The case was transferred from the Bombay High Court to the NCLT under Sections 433(e), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner, Lippi Systems Private Limited, did not appear on the listed date, August 14, 2017. There was no evidence of service of the petition and notice of demand on the respondent, Radha Madhav Corporation Limited. The court noted that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to appear. A notification dated June 29, 2017, allows parties to file fresh applications under sections 7, 8, or 9 of the IBC after July 15, 2017. The relevance of the notification is that it provides an alternative avenue for the petitioner to pursue their claim under the IBC despite the dismissal of the current petition.