Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 07 NCLT CK 0665

M/s. SSP Private Limited vs M/s. Athani Sugars Limited

National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 22 July 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (Judicial) · Ashok Kumar Mishra, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
C.P. (IB) No.253/BB/2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 270 words

Per: Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Member (Technical)

1.

C.P. (IB) No.253/BB/2019 is filed by M/s. SSP Private Limited (‘Petitioner/Operational Creditor’) under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, by inter alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s. Athani Sugars Limited (‘Respondent/Corporate Debtor’) on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has committed default for a total outstanding amount of Rs.66,11,862/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Two Only) along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. thereon from the due date.

2.

The Petition was filed before the Bench on 10.05.2019 and on scrutiny of the application, the Registry has raised certain office objections on 17.05.2019, and the same were sent by email to the Counsel on 17.05.2019. However, the office objections were not complied within the time granted, and the case was listed on 04.07.2019 for non-compliance of office objections, and on that day neither the Petitioner nor Counsel for the Petitioner appeared before the Tribunal.

3.

On perusal of the records, it shows that the case is not being prosecuted diligently. Therefore, the case was posted under the caption “For Dismissal” on 22.07.2019. Today also neither the Petitioner nor Counsel for the Petitioner appeared before the Tribunal. It shows that the Petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case, and therefore, the Petition is liable to be dismissed for default for non-compliance of office objections.

4.

In the result, C.P. (IB) No.253/BB/2019 is dismissed for default for non-compliance of office objections. No order as to costs.