The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency). The NCLAT had set aside the admission of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by the respondent, an operational creditor, alleging default in payment of Rs. 2 crores for goods supplied in 2012. The NCLAT set aside the admission order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on the ground that the demand notice was served by an advocate without proper authorization. The respondent then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter back to the NCLAT. The appellant claims they were not present before the NCLAT when it examined the matter again.
The respondent, Valia and Co. (D) Thr. Lrs, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming to be an operational creditor of the appellant, Jord Engineers India Ltd., due to a default of Rs. 2 crores for goods supplied in 2012. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, admitted the application. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside the NCLT's order, citing that the demand notice was served by an unauthorized advocate. Valia and Co. then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the NCLAT. Jord Engineers India Ltd. claims it was not present before the NCLAT during the subsequent proceedings. The NCLAT then examined the matter with
…Sign in to view the parties.
Goods supplied for…
Application admitted by…
The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency). The NCLAT had set aside the admission of an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by the respondent, an operational creditor, alleging default in payment of Rs. 2 crores for goods supplied in 2012. The NCLAT set aside the admission order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on the ground that the demand notice was served by an advocate without proper authorization. The respondent then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter back to the NCLAT. The appellant claims they were not present before the NCLAT when it examined the matter again.
The respondent, Valia and Co. (D) Thr. Lrs, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming to be an operational creditor of the appellant, Jord Engineers India Ltd., due to a default of Rs. 2 crores for goods supplied in 2012. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, admitted the application. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside the NCLT's order, citing that the demand notice was served by an unauthorized advocate. Valia and Co. then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the NCLAT. Jord Engineers India Ltd. claims it was not present before the NCLAT during the subsequent proceedings. The NCLAT then examined the matter with
…Goods supplied for…
Application admitted by…