Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)
MR. VIRIGNENI ANJAIAH – Appellant
Versus
M/S. PRIDHVI ASSET RECONSTRUCTION AND SECURITIZATION COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeals and context of the disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on the initial proceedings and prior judgment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding limitation and necessity of fresh notice. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. court's observations on limitation and service of notice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. conclusion on the merits of the appeal and final judgment. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]
These two company appeals, as they stand on a common pedestal, for the purposes of brevity, they are being taken up and decided together. The Appellants of the two company appeal, who are the Personal Guarantors, in their status in the said capacity, question the propriety of the impugned orders of 15.04.2024, as they was rendered in CP (IB) No. 213/95/HDB/2023 and CP (IB) No. 207/95/HDB/2023 respectively. By virtue of the impugned orders, which are under challenge, the proceedings that were held under Section 95 of the I & B Code, 2016, had been directed to be admitted, as against the present Appellants for being carried forward, in accordance with the provisions of law, applicable to it.
2. To be preci
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
