The case involves an application filed under Section 99(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Resolution Professional (RP) appointed to oversee an application filed under Section 95 of the IBC against Saunak Harshad Choksi, the Personal Guarantor, by the Financial Creditor, Kirtanlal & Sons. The RP submitted a report, but it was found to be inconsistent and incomplete, as details of the debt and repayment were not furnished by the Personal Guarantor and Financial Creditor. The applicant argued that their submitted documents were not considered. The Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai had initially decreed the debt on 15.03.2005, and further proceedings were made by the applicant by filing an execution application No.92 of 2006. The Corporate Debtor filed a
…Kirtanlal & Sons, the Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 95 of the IBC against Saunak Harshad Choksi, the Personal Guarantor. The application was based on a debt initially decreed by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai on 15.03.2005 for Rs. 28,91,836/-. Subsequent execution proceedings were initiated by the applicant in 2006. The Corporate Debtor had previously filed a reference application before the BIFR on 02.01.2006. The High Court of Bombay set aside a stay order on 26.09.2019, allowing the applicant to proceed with the execution of the decree. A demand notice was served on 14.07.2022, and the application was filed on 23.09.2022. The RP appointed to assess the application submitted an incomplete report, failing to consider documents provided
…Sign in to view the parties.
Hon'ble High Court of…
Corporate Debtor filed…
The case involves an application filed under Section 99(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Resolution Professional (RP) appointed to oversee an application filed under Section 95 of the IBC against Saunak Harshad Choksi, the Personal Guarantor, by the Financial Creditor, Kirtanlal & Sons. The RP submitted a report, but it was found to be inconsistent and incomplete, as details of the debt and repayment were not furnished by the Personal Guarantor and Financial Creditor. The applicant argued that their submitted documents were not considered. The Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai had initially decreed the debt on 15.03.2005, and further proceedings were made by the applicant by filing an execution application No.92 of 2006. The Corporate Debtor filed a
…Kirtanlal & Sons, the Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 95 of the IBC against Saunak Harshad Choksi, the Personal Guarantor. The application was based on a debt initially decreed by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai on 15.03.2005 for Rs. 28,91,836/-. Subsequent execution proceedings were initiated by the applicant in 2006. The Corporate Debtor had previously filed a reference application before the BIFR on 02.01.2006. The High Court of Bombay set aside a stay order on 26.09.2019, allowing the applicant to proceed with the execution of the decree. A demand notice was served on 14.07.2022, and the application was filed on 23.09.2022. The RP appointed to assess the application submitted an incomplete report, failing to consider documents provided
…Hon'ble High Court of…
Corporate Debtor filed…