NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 3(11), 3(6), 5(7), 5(8), 5(8)(A), 5(8)(B), 5(8)(C), 5(8)(D), 5(8)(E), 5(8)(F), 5(8)(G), 5(8)(H), 5(8)(I), 7 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016, SECTION 62(A)(1), 68, 179, 186 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 AND SECTION 25 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

 

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Pankaj Piyush Trade And Investment Limited Vs. Kamal Ideal Infratech Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0023

NCLT dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'code') praying for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor on grounds of its inability to liquidate its financial debt. While dismissing the petition NCLT held that In the light of the aforesaid provisions, when we shall consider the case of Petitioner then we find that the applicant has not enclosed the resolution passed by the Corporate Debtor company as required under Section 179 as well as under Section 186. In other words, the Petitioner has neither enclosed the resolution passed by the Board of Director of the Corporate Debtor Company nor enclosed the resolution passed by the Board of Director of his company by which the company was authorized to disburse the loan. We have already held that there is no written agreement. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the Petitioner has failed to convince us that the amount which he has paid comes under the definition of Financial Debt and the applicant is the Financial Creditor therefore, the present application is not maintainable. Accordingly, we have no other option but to reject the prayer of the applicant to initiate the CIRP against the respondent. Accordingly, it is therefore, ordered that the present application stands DISMISSED.