The Special Appeal citing a moratorium under Section 114 of IBC is dismissed as not maintainable pending the repayment plan order by the NCLT Bench.
The Special Appeal was set aside due to the existing moratorium period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| 12.02.2025 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II S.A. No.89 of 2025 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Sunil Humbre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs Uma S. Fadia and Mr Aayush Kothari, Advocates for Respondent. Heard counsel for the parties. |
|||
| Counsel for Applicant filed |
|||
| 7 | additional affidavit (exhibit-7) regarding the declined of Company Petition IB Bearing No.2709138/09371/2023 which the counsel for Respondent raised an objection yesterday. Counsel for Respondent has also filed Notice of Deputy Registrar, NCLT dated 03.04.2024 regarding Company Petition No.1138/MB/2023 of NCLT, Mumbai. There is moratorium for 180 days or until the order of NCLT passes on the repayment plan under Section 114 of the IBC, whichever is earlier. There is no doubt about the veracity. Hence, in view of the moratorium, S.A. is not maintainable. |
Page 1 of 2
| S.A. No.89 of 2025 stands dis in view of the order of the NCLT Bench. |
posed of Hon’ble |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| File be consigned to the | Record | ||
| Room after due compliance. | |||
| rst -09 | Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Special Appeal is maintainable in view of the NCLT moratorium under Section 114 of IBC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicant
Respondent
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
