Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Prabhat Kumar, Technical Member, Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Judicial Member
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Milind Patel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and the context of the amendment application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. applicant's contention on calculation of limitation and legal impact of stay orders. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments regarding laches, limitation, and procedural impropriety. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's reasoning on the maintainability of section 339 claims and exclusion of time for limitation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. final order allowing the amendment to the company petition. (Para 29) |
Appearances:
For the Applicant : Mr. Aditya Sikka
For the Respondents : Mr. Harsh Shah for R-1; Ms. Aditi Bhatt for R-3 & R-4; Ms. D. Prachi for R-5; Mr. Raghav Seth for R-6 & R-7; Mr. Kunal Mehta for R-8, R-9 & R-14; Mr. Amir Arsiwala for R-11; Mr. Chirag Naik for R-12; Mr. Prashant Singh for R-20 & Mr. Varun Satiya for R-21
ORDER
Per: Coram
1. The present Application has been filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to amend Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018, specifically seeking to introduce prayer (e) based on the findings of the SFIO Investigation Report on IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. ("IFIN Inv
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
