2022 (4) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking to initiate CIRP against the respondent in January, 2019. It is submitted that the pleadings in the said matter were complete and the matter was extensively argued by both the parties and the order was reserved on 14.01.2021. 3. It is submitted that another related matter being C.P.(IB)-2992/ND/2019 titled "Natraj Proteins Limited Vs. Claro Energy Pvt. Ltd." was also filed and pending against the same Corporate Debtor was taken up together and the said matter was also reserved on the same date. Further, this Tribunal admitted the said matter vide judgment dated 13.04.2021 whereby this Tribunal acknowledged the liability of the respondent towards the applicant and direc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n left with no remedy with regards to its claim against the corporate debtor. 7. Admittedly, C.P.(IB)-2992/ND/2019 as well as CP/08/ND/2019 was pending before this Tribunal for adjudication. Accordingly, in C.P.(IB)-2992/ND/2019 titled as Natraj Proteins Limited Vs. Claro Energy Private Limited vide order dated 13.04.2021, CIR proceeding were ordered to be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. On the same date in IB No. 08/ND/2019 the following order was passed:- "Against the same corporate debtor Claro Energy Private Limited C.P. No. IB No. 2992ND/2019 has already been admitted on 13.04.2021 and the CIR process is in progress. Accordingly, the applicant in the present application may file their claim before the IRP which shal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. Although, vide notification dated 24.03.2020, the threshold limit has been increased to 1 crores, but it is matter of fact that the present CP/IB/08/ND/2019 was filed way back on 26.12.2018 and order was passed on 13.04.2021, therefore, the threshold limit should not come in the way of the present applicant as by virtue of Rule 11 of NCLT Rules 2016, only the revival of the present petition has been sought. 10. Further, it is also the matter of fact that this petition was not withdrawn in view of any settlement rather the order was passed by this Tribunal, whereby the applicant herein was directed to present its claim before the IRP. Once the CIR proceedings stood initiated in the other matter and taking into consideration the fact th....