The case involves a company petition, CP (IB) No. 10/BB/2017, filed by M/s. Flight Raja Travels Private Limited under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The petitioner sought to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Air Pegasus Private Limited.
M/s. Flight Raja Travels Private Limited, an operational creditor, filed a company petition (CP (IB) No. 10/BB/2017) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Air Pegasus Private Limited, the corporate debtor. The case was listed for hearing on multiple dates between April 3, 2017, and March 21, 2019. However, neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared before the Tribunal on several occasions. Due to the petitioner's repeated absence, the case was posted for dismissal on March 21, 2019. On that date, no one appeared for the petitioner, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the Tribunal
…Sign in to view the parties.
Case liste…
Case liste…
The case involves a company petition, CP (IB) No. 10/BB/2017, filed by M/s. Flight Raja Travels Private Limited under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The petitioner sought to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Air Pegasus Private Limited.
M/s. Flight Raja Travels Private Limited, an operational creditor, filed a company petition (CP (IB) No. 10/BB/2017) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Air Pegasus Private Limited, the corporate debtor. The case was listed for hearing on multiple dates between April 3, 2017, and March 21, 2019. However, neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared before the Tribunal on several occasions. Due to the petitioner's repeated absence, the case was posted for dismissal on March 21, 2019. On that date, no one appeared for the petitioner, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the Tribunal
…Case liste…
Case liste…