Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 02 NCLT CK 0900

S. Rama Narayanan vs M/s. Valuemart Gold & Jewels Ltd.

National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 13 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (Judicial) · Ashutosh Chandra, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.P. (IB)No.55/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

6 paragraphs · 296 words

None appeared for the Petitioner. C.P.(IB)No.55/BB/2020 is dismissed for default by separate order.

Per: Ashutosh Chandra, Member (Technical)

1.

C.P.(IB)No.55/BB/2020 is filed by S. Rama Narayanan (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner/Operational Creditor') under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 R/w Rule 6 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, by inter-alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of M/s. Valuemart Gold & Jewels Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent/Corporate Debtor') on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has committed default for a total outstanding amount of Rs.6,43,200/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred only) which consists of principal amount of Rs.3,20,000/- and interest @ 24% p.a.

2.

The Petition was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 20.11.2019 and on scrutiny of the same, office objection was raised. So far the Counsel/PCA/PCS has not taken any steps to rectify the office objection, though the office objection note has been sent to Counsel/PCS/PCA through email on 10.12.2019. In view of the above, the Application/Petition was posted before the Bench for orders regarding non-compliance of the office objection on 03.02.2020. However, on 03.02.2020, 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. The case was hence posted under the caption "For Dismissal" on 13.02.2020. Today also i.e. on 13.02.2020, neither the Petitioner nor Counsel for the Petitioner appeared before the Adjudicating Authority. This shows that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case, and therefore, the Petition is liable to be dismissed for default for non-compliance of the office objection.

4.

In the result, C.P.(IB)No.55/BB/2020 is dismissed for default for non-compliance of the office objection. No order as to costs.