Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 8 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd vs Kirusa Software Private Ltd on 21 September, 2017
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd
(Supra), we are of the opinion that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has
incorrectly allowed the application filed under Section 9 of the IBC on behalf
of the Operational Creditor/Respondent No.1 which requires interference.
Accordingly, order dated 2nd August, 2021 passed by learned National
Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench IV in CP(IB)/1393/MB-IV/2020 is
hereby set aside. It goes without saying that the setting aside of the impugned
order may not be treated as a hurdle for the Operational Creditor to take other
action in accordance with law, if any. The Appeal is allowed. The order
impugned dated 2nd August, 2021 is set aside.
Section 5 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S. Actal vs M/S. India Infoline Limited on 9 October, 2012
ii) ACTAL Vs. India Infoline Limited: MANU/MH/1768/2012 - Judgment
dated 9th October 2012 - Bombay High Court - (Pg. No. 285)
N.N. Valechha vs I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd. on 15 September, 2006
iii) N.N. Valecha v I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd. 2006 SCC Online Bom 1289 -
Para 11 - (Pg. No. 297)
Section 61 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
S.P. Brothers, A Partnership Firm vs Biren Ramesh Kadakia on 27 March, 2008
i) S.P. Brothers v Biren Ramesh Kadakia 2008 SCC Online Bom 1599 -
1