TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Update on Urgent Hearing Applications, Affidavit Filing, and Future Proceedings</h1> <h3>Parivartan Investment & Finance Company Versus Haryana Telecom Ltd.</h3> Parivartan Investment & Finance Company Versus Haryana Telecom Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Urgent hearing applications disposed of as infructuous.2. Affidavit of service filed with no representation from Registrar of Companies.3. Condonation of delay in filing a reply by CoC granted.4. Similar application disposed of in terms of a previous order.5. Listing of applications on a future date.6. Notice issuance and service requirements for specific applications.Issue 1: Urgent hearing applications disposed of as infructuousThe Tribunal disposed of several urgent hearing applications, such as IA No. 822/2020, IA No. 178/2021, and IA No. 380/2021, as they were filed for urgent hearings, but the matters were taken up on the regular board. Consequently, the Tribunal found these applications to be infructuous and disposed of them accordingly.Issue 2: Affidavit of service filed with no representation from Registrar of CompaniesIn IA No. 611/2021, an affidavit of service was filed, but there was no representation on behalf of the Registrar of Companies. The Tribunal directed the applicant to inform the office of the Registrar of Companies about the next date of the hearing, and the matter was listed for further proceedings on a specific date.Issue 3: Condonation of delay in filing a reply by CoC grantedIA No. 836/2020 was an application filed by the resolution professional seeking condonation of delay in filing a reply by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in IA No. 728/2020. The Tribunal, considering the grounds mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, condoned the delay and accepted the reply in IA No. 728/2020, thereby disposing of IA No. 836/2020.Issue 4: Similar application disposed of in terms of a previous orderIn IA No. 728/2020, the respondent's counsel acknowledged that a similar application, IA No. 344/2020, had been dismissed by the Bench in a previous order dated 05.03.2021. The respondent's counsel agreed to dispose of the present application in line with the previous order, leading to the disposal of IA No. 728/20 as per the order dated 05.03.2021.Issue 5: Listing of applications on a future dateFor IA No. 823/2020, IA No. 828/2020, IA No. 829/2020, and IA No. 837/2020, the Tribunal directed to list these applications on 13.12.2021, indicating a future date for further proceedings and hearings in these matters.Issue 6: Notice issuance and service requirements for specific applicationsIn IA No. 829/2020 and IA No. 837/2020, the Tribunal ordered the issuance of notices to the respondents for a specific date. The applicants were instructed to collect the notices from the Registry and send them to the respondents through speed post, along with necessary documents. Additionally, provisions for substitute service were outlined in case the speed post service was unsuccessful, requiring the advertisement of the notice in newspapers and filing of an affidavit of service within a specified timeline. Replies and rejoinders were also mandated to be filed within designated periods, with further instructions for future proceedings.This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, outlining the Tribunal's decisions and directions for each specific matter brought before it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
