Satish Law Agency

M/s Gupshup Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) filed application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I&B Code’) against ‘M/s Interpid Online Retail Pvt. Ltd.’ (‘Corporate Debtor’) which having rejected by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru by order dated 8th November, 2018, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority held that the claim is barred by limitation and there is existence of dispute. Appellant states that the record of the services carried out as on 5th September, 2017 shows that the Respondent availed the services through the SMS Dashboard and had its own dedicated user name and password for logging. However, the Respondent in their email dated 5th September, 2017 sought details of email logs and other supporting documents in order to verify the invoices. 7. The Appellant issued a Demand Notice under Section 8(1) on 2...

The promoter of the Corporate Debtor have preferred this appeal to set a side the impugned order of AA  impugned order dated 20th September, 2019 under Section 9 of the I&B code preferred by M/s Aanav Construction Co. ‘M/s Aanav Construction Co’. moved an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the ‘I&B Code’), pursuant to which the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench by impugned order dated 20th September, 2019 initiated ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against ‘Shri Balaji Infradevelopers Private Limited’. However the Promoters/appellant  have settled the claim of all the 11 Claimants before the constitution of COC  and preferred this appeal . Therefore this appellate tribunal held that as the Promoters have settled the claim of all the 11 Claimants and the ‘Committee of Creditors’ has not been constituted, Appellate Tribunal in  exercise of powers conferred ...