Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
M/s.Capricon Food Products Indian Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Conveyor Engineering Systems – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim extinguishment during insolvency. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding validity of execution during cirp. (Para 2 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. counterarguments highlighting past awards. (Para 6 , 11) |
| 4. court's ruling on claims and resolution plans. (Para 7 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling on the revision petition. (Para 15) |
ORDER
The respondent/judgment debtor in E.P.No.92 of 2024 is the revision petitioner.
2.I have heard Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Kadhirvelu, learned counsel for the respondent.
3.Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would attack the order of the executing Court allowing the execution petition, without appreciating the valid and tenable objections, with regard to the effect of the proceedings before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). He would first and foremost contend that the respondent had approached MSME Council, which passed an award for Rs.34,53,303/- and for recovery of the said amount alone, the execution petition has been filed. However, it is the primordial submission of Mr.T.Ravichandran that the execution petition itself was not maintainable since the petitioner was under Corpora
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
