03/09/2019

As there being a default of debt of more than Rs. 1 Lakh and, in absence of any pre-existence of dispute, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to reject the application under Section 9 only on the ground that the Corporate Debtor is MSME – M/s. Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. M/s. My Choice Knit & Apparels Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In the aforesaid circumstances, as there being a default of debt of more than Rs. 1 Lakh and, in absence of any pre-existence of dispute, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to reject the application under Section 9 only on the ground that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is MSME. There is no such provision under the Act which stipulates that a Company (‘Corporate Debtor’) which is MSME does not come within the purview of ‘I&B Code’ or application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10 is not maintainable.

As there being a default of debt of more than Rs. 1 Lakh and, in absence of any pre-existence of dispute, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to reject the application under Section 9 only on the ground that the Corporate Debtor is MSME – M/s. Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. M/s. My Choice Knit & Apparels Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The Authorised Representative has not taken any opinion of the Financial Creditors, it was even otherwise a fit case to reject the application filed under Section 12A for withdrawal of application under Section 7 of the Code. – Kaushik Ghosh Vs. Noor Alam & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

The Authorised Representative has not taken any opinion of the Financial Creditors, it was even otherwise a fit case to reject the application filed under Section 12A for withdrawal of application under Section 7 of the Code. – Kaushik Ghosh Vs. Noor Alam & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top