Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 03 NCLT CK 0325

Mr. Shrenik Sutariya vs M/s. Auro Make My Hall Private Limited

National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 2 March 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (Judicial) · Ashutosh Chandra, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.P. (IB) No. 85/BB/2020

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 · 271 words

Per: Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (Judicial)

1.

C.P.(IB)No. 85/BB/2020 is filed by Mr. Shrenik Sutariya ('Petitioner/Operational Creditor') under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, R/w Rule 6 of the I&B(AAA) Rules, 2016,by inter alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s. Auro Make My Hall Private Limited ('Respondent/Corporate Debtor') on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has committed default for a total outstanding amount of Rs.6,71,738/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Seven only) including interest of Rs. 66,738/- (Rupees Sixty Six thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight only) and legal expenses of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) as on 21.12.2018.

2.

The Petition was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 09.01.2020 and on scrutiny of the application, the Registry has raised certain office objections and the same were sent through mail to the Counsel on 24.01.2020. The case was listed on 27.02.2020 for the non-compliance of office objections, and on this day neither the Petitioner nor the Counsel for the Petitioner appeared before the Adjudicating Authority.

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 02.03.2020. Today also neither the Petitioner nor Counsel for the Petitioner appeared before the Adjudicating Authority. 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. 85/BB/2020 is dismissed for default for non-compliance of office objections. No order as to costs.