https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211165 The appeal was allowed by the court, setting aside the Company Judge's order, on the condition that the appellant deposits Rs. 3.25 crores with the DRAT as per a specified schedule. The court recognized the appellant's bona fide dispute regarding the one-time settlement with ICICI and the petitioning creditor's status as an assignee. Emphasizing the appellant's financial viability and willingness to settle the debt, the court maintained the injunction on property transfers until the deposit was made, refraining from expressing opinions on pending matters before the DRAT. en-us Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211165 The appeal was allowed by the court, setting aside the Company Judge's order, on the condition that the appellant deposits Rs. 3.25 crores with the DRAT as per a specified schedule. The court recognized the appellant's bona fide dispute regarding the one-time settlement with ICICI and the petitioning creditor's status as an assignee. Emphasizing the appellant's financial viability and willingness to settle the debt, the court maintained the injunction on property transfers until the deposit was made, refraining from expressing opinions on pending matters before the DRAT. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211165