The case involves an application (IA/1931/ND/2022) filed on behalf of the IRP (Insolvency Resolution Professional) stating that the matter has been settled between both parties. The entire payment has been made, and this view is endorsed by the counsel for the Operational Creditor's Suspended Board of Directors. The applicant's counsel stated that they do not wish to proceed with the application due to the settlement.
A.R International filed an application against M/s PRL Projects & Infrastructure Ltd under Section 9 of the IBC. The IRP stated that the matter has been settled between both parties, and the entire payment has been made. The Operational Creditor's counsel endorsed this view. The Applicant's counsel stated that they do not want to proceed with the application due to the settlement. The IRP fees have been paid. The key fact is the settlement between the parties, leading to the withdrawal of the CIRP.
Sign in to view the parties.
Order delivere…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves an application (IA/1931/ND/2022) filed on behalf of the IRP (Insolvency Resolution Professional) stating that the matter has been settled between both parties. The entire payment has been made, and this view is endorsed by the counsel for the Operational Creditor's Suspended Board of Directors. The applicant's counsel stated that they do not wish to proceed with the application due to the settlement.
A.R International filed an application against M/s PRL Projects & Infrastructure Ltd under Section 9 of the IBC. The IRP stated that the matter has been settled between both parties, and the entire payment has been made. The Operational Creditor's counsel endorsed this view. The Applicant's counsel stated that they do not want to proceed with the application due to the settlement. The IRP fees have been paid. The key fact is the settlement between the parties, leading to the withdrawal of the CIRP.
Order delivere…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.