1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court dismisses appeal in 2019, upholds Tribunal's order. Parties represented by respective counsel.</h1> The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal in 2019, as no grounds were found to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Pending applications were ... Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor - Approval of Resolution plan without complying the mandatory provisions of the βI&B Codeβ - it was held by NCLAT that Admittedly, the βCorporate Debtorβ is a βMSMEβ and the promoters are not ineligible in terms of Section 29A of the βI&B Codeβ. Therefore, it is not necessary for the βCommittee of Creditorsβ to find out whether the βResolution Applicantβ is ineligible in terms of Section 29A or not. HELD THAT:- No case is made out so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The Supreme Court of India in 2019 (7) TMI 1994 - SC Order, with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, dismissed the appeal as no case was made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Pending application(s) were disposed of. Appellant represented by Mr. Saurabh Kirpal and others, while Respondent represented by Mr. Rana Mukjerjee and others.