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>Civil Appeal Dismissed; Appellant May File Recovery Suit Within One Month; Delay Applications Considered Under Limitation Act 1963.</h1> <h3>STRAW COMMODITIES LLP Versus ANRAM AGRO TRADING PVT. LTD.</h3> The SC dismissed the civil appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the appellant is granted the liberty to file a suit ... Dismissal of Application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Respondent, seeking resolution of an outstanding amount - existence of Pre-Existing Dispute between the Parties or not - it was held by NCLAT that the dismissal of the application upheld, concluding that there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties and that the Code was not the appropriate forum for the claim. HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed. In the Supreme Court judgment, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma presided over the case. The Court dismissed the civil appeal, stating, 'We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.' However, the appellant is granted 'liberty...to file a suit for recovery of the money' within one month. The Court clarified that if such a suit is filed within this timeframe, the Trial Court should consider any 'application(s) seeking condonation of delay' in line with the Limitation Act, 1963. The judgment also specifies that any observations from the impugned order related to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, will not affect the adjudication of the new suit, which should be based on evidence. All pending applications are disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
