9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r The Respondent : Mr. Dhaval Deshpande, Advocate ORDER The case has been listed in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court date 2nd April, 2018 in SLP No. 8145/2018. On 25th April, 2018 the Registry was directed to serve notice to the Appellant and the Respondent. After service of notice, the Respondent appeared but nobody appeared on behalf of the Appellant. In this background, fresh notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating Authority and thereby Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was started against 'M/s Jord Engineers India Ltd'. Apart from the points as were raised and noticed by the Appellate Tribunal on 13th October, 2017, no other ground was pleaded to come to the conclusion that initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 was illegal. 6. In the present case we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
