9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.P. Singh] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Manoranjani Shaw, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kumar Sudeep, Advocate ORDER This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Operational Creditor against Impugned Order dated 09th September, 2020 passed in CP (IB) No. 184/BB/2020 by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Bengaluru Bench). By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue and left the Appellant high and dry. Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that on merits the Respondent has a good case as there was pre-existing dispute. Learned Counsel for Respondent also submits that the claim is barred by Limitation. It is stated that the Respondent was not served. 3. We have seen the Impugned Order. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Impugned Order read as under: "4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Code, and thereafter the Respondent raised dispute vide their Reply dated 13.12.2019. The contentions raised in the Reply is totally contrary to their earlier letter dated 13.03.2018, and these contentions/allegations are not all tenable and they cannot constitute valid and legal dispute. Since the Respondent did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, the amount involved in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed of by directing the Respondent to settle the issue in question, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to file fresh Company Petition in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to both the Parties. No order as to costs." 4. We find this approach of the Adjudicating Authority not to be in accordance with law. If the Respondent is not served, it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
