TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) was filed by the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, that cannot be taken into consideration to annul the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside earlier order passed by this Appellate Tribunal on 13th October, 2017, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated against ‘M/s Jord Engineers India Ltd.’ revived. The Resolution Professional has taken charge of the same as ordered by the Adjudicating Authority and the Moratorium order etc. passed by the Adjudicating Authority is continuing. However, we make it clear that the period of pendency of the appeal before this Appellate Tribunal and then before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, till its disposal i.e. from 30th August, 2017 till today (d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said order was set aside by this Appellate Tribunal by judgment dated 13.10.2017 on the ground that the notice under Section 8(1) was given through the Advocate. 3. In the case of Macquarie Bank Limited Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited , (2018) 2 SCC 674, in Civil Appeals No. 15135, 15481 and 15447 of 2017 on 15th December, 2017 , Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows:- 49. Since there is no clear disharmony between the two parliamentary statutes in the present case which cannot be resolved by harmonious interpretation, it is clear that both statutes must be read together. Also, we must not forget that Section 30 of the Advocates Act deals with the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to prac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted in view of provision of Article 137 Part II of the Limitation Act1963, wherein period of three years prescribed from the date when the right to apply accrues. 7. Admittedly, the right to apply under Section 9 accrued to Respondent only after the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came into force, i.e. 1st December, 2016, the application under Section 9 was preferred within three years, therefore it was not barred by limitation. There was another issue raised by the Corporate Debtor that the goods supplied was of inferior quality, but no such dispute was raised by the Appellant prior to issuance of notice under Section 8(1). The question of quality was raised by the Appellant only when reply under Section 8(2) was filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
