9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Mr. M. P. Sahay, Advocate. For the Respondent : None ORDER This appeal has been preferred by 'Sudhi Sachdev', Promoter of 'M/s Auto Décor Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) against order dated 2nd August, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench whereby application under Section 9 of I&B Code preferred by Respondent - 'APPL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overy of the money, therefore, in view of the pendency of such case, application under section 9 of I&B Code is not maintainable. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perusal of records, we are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the Appellant. 5. In "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors." - (2018)1 SCC 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that there is a debt payable to the Operational Creditor and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The pendency of the case under Section 138/441 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, even if accepted as recovery proceeding, it cannot be held to be a dispute pending before a court of law. Thereby we hold that the pendency of the case under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
