The case involves an application (IA) filed by State Bank of India (SBI) in an ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Shree Padmawati Metaliks Pvt Ltd. SBI seeks to file a rejoinder affidavit to address the Corporate Debtor's claim that the debt is barred by limitation. The bank contends that it was compelled to engage a new counsel because the previous counsel did not seek time to file the rejoinder. The Corporate Debtor argues that the petition is barred by limitation and that the bank is attempting to introduce new facts through the rejoinder.
State Bank of India (SBI) initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Shree Padmawati Metaliks Pvt Ltd. SBI filed an application (IA) seeking permission to file a rejoinder affidavit to counter the Corporate Debtor's claim that the debt was barred by limitation. The Corporate Debtor argued that the petition was time-barred and that the bank was attempting to introduce new facts through the rejoinder. SBI claimed that the delay in filing the rejoinder was due to the lapse on the part of the earlier lawyer, necessitating a change of counsel. The Corporate Debtor had filed a civil suit and a writ petition (W.P 7104 (W)) before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. SBI contends that the Corporate Debtor acknowledged outstanding dues of over 68 Crores.
…Sign in to view the parties.
Hearing of the…
Order was…
The case involves an application (IA) filed by State Bank of India (SBI) in an ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Shree Padmawati Metaliks Pvt Ltd. SBI seeks to file a rejoinder affidavit to address the Corporate Debtor's claim that the debt is barred by limitation. The bank contends that it was compelled to engage a new counsel because the previous counsel did not seek time to file the rejoinder. The Corporate Debtor argues that the petition is barred by limitation and that the bank is attempting to introduce new facts through the rejoinder.
State Bank of India (SBI) initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Shree Padmawati Metaliks Pvt Ltd. SBI filed an application (IA) seeking permission to file a rejoinder affidavit to counter the Corporate Debtor's claim that the debt was barred by limitation. The Corporate Debtor argued that the petition was time-barred and that the bank was attempting to introduce new facts through the rejoinder. SBI claimed that the delay in filing the rejoinder was due to the lapse on the part of the earlier lawyer, necessitating a change of counsel. The Corporate Debtor had filed a civil suit and a writ petition (W.P 7104 (W)) before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. SBI contends that the Corporate Debtor acknowledged outstanding dues of over 68 Crores.
…Hearing of the…
Order was…