Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.88 seconds)
Rajpal Singh Solanki vs Quazer Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Anr on 2 July, 2021 cites

M/S. Innoventive Industries Ltd vs Icici Bank & Anr on 15 May, 2017

 Mobilox Innovations Private Limited. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) I SCC 353  Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank &Anr., (2018) I SCC 407  K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirmal Company, (2018) SCC Online 1013  Sudhir Sales v. D. Art Furnitures MANU/NL/248/2018  YogendraYasupal v. Jigsaw Solutions, (2017) SCC Online NCLAT 293 The ratio in all these judgments support the dictum that the pre-
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 79 - Cited by 132 - Full Document

Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd vs Kirusa Software Private Ltd on 21 September, 2017

15. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited and Innovative Industries Limited civil appeals are basically about pre-existing dispute and that the Adjudicating Authority should be prima facie convinced about the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2020 Page 12 of 16 pre-existence of a dispute before notice under Section 8 was sent, and not involve itself into examining the pre-existing dispute on merits. In the present case, since no pre-existing dispute is found to be present, the ratio of these judgments are not found applicable. The judgment in Kuntal Construction case, decided by NCLAT only follows the dictum well-settled by Mobilox case judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 272 - R F Nariman - Full Document

K.Kishan vs M/S Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. Rep. ... on 14 August, 2018

 Mobilox Innovations Private Limited. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) I SCC 353  Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank &Anr., (2018) I SCC 407  K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirmal Company, (2018) SCC Online 1013  Sudhir Sales v. D. Art Furnitures MANU/NL/248/2018  YogendraYasupal v. Jigsaw Solutions, (2017) SCC Online NCLAT 293 The ratio in all these judgments support the dictum that the pre-
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 33 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Kuntal Construction Pvt Ltd vs Bharat Hotels Ltd on 4 September, 2020

15. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited and Innovative Industries Limited civil appeals are basically about pre-existing dispute and that the Adjudicating Authority should be prima facie convinced about the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2020 Page 12 of 16 pre-existence of a dispute before notice under Section 8 was sent, and not involve itself into examining the pre-existing dispute on merits. In the present case, since no pre-existing dispute is found to be present, the ratio of these judgments are not found applicable. The judgment in Kuntal Construction case, decided by NCLAT only follows the dictum well-settled by Mobilox case judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sudhir Sales & Services Ltd vs D-Art Furniture Systems Pvt. Ltd on 4 October, 2018

 Mobilox Innovations Private Limited. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) I SCC 353  Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank &Anr., (2018) I SCC 407  K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirmal Company, (2018) SCC Online 1013  Sudhir Sales v. D. Art Furnitures MANU/NL/248/2018  YogendraYasupal v. Jigsaw Solutions, (2017) SCC Online NCLAT 293 The ratio in all these judgments support the dictum that the pre-
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Universal Woollen Mills vs Winsome Yarns Ltd on 13 March, 2019

16. The Ld. Counsel for Appellant has also cited the judgment of NCLAT in Universal Woollen Mills v. Winsome Yarns Ltd., C.A. (AT) (I) No. 554 of 2018to emphasise that it is not for the Adjudicating Authority to examine whether the two letters claiming pre-existence of dispute are fabricated or not. In the cited judgment, the fabrication of an email had been alleged. In the present case two letters of the corporate debtor have been cited as evidence of pre-existence of dispute which do not inspire our confidence as no other corroboration of their existence has been shown by the Appellant. If such letters pre-existed, Corporate Debtor did not refer to them in reply to Section 8 Notice or Reply to Section 9 Application as we have noted earlier in this judgment. Only at the time of final arguments (as claimed by Appellant) they were tendered. Operational Creditor disputes this and Operational Creditor claims they were filed by Corporate Debtor after close of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2020 Page 13 of 16 arguments, with Written Submissions, without permission of Adjudicating Authority
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1