Vikas @ Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan through P P
Case brief
What is this about?
An Indian Single Judge Bench, in procedural context, reiterates caretaker/绔解釋 under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code framework exists in the Corporation (P) Ltd. Act. Ky 62/2016. The court concluded that the petitioner has failed to comply with Section 62, 2016 (149-2008).
What the court decided
1
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj ihB] t;iqj
%% vk ns 'k %%
,dy ihB QkStnkjh fofo/k ltk LFkxu@tekur izkFkZuk&i= la[;k 1354@2017 vUrxZr ,dy ihB QkStnkjh vihy la[;k 2114@2017
Petitioner/Appeallant :
fodkl mQZ jkds'k iq= Jh t;ukjk;.k flag tkfr tkV fuoklh ljnkjiqjk] ru mjhdk] iqfyl Fkkuk lwjtx<] ftyk >qU>quqA
VERSUS
Respondent :
jktLFkku ljdkj tfj;s yksd vfHk;kstdA
vkns'k fnukad % 2-5-2018
ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh egsUnz ekgs'ojh
izkFkhZ@vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk Jh ts vkj pkS/kjh yksd vfHk;kstd Jh jkejru xqtZj A
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Requirements for immediate consideration of a letter filed in court under paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Banking Insolvency and Bankruptcy Regulations, 2016.
Whether the petitioner/appellant should be required to pay expenses as per the order dated 01.06.2018 if they are to be at the disposal of the Tribunal under Rule 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy B
Parties & counsel
- appellant
fodkl mQZ jkds'k iq= Jh t;ukjk;.k flag tkfr tkV fuoklh ljnkjiqjk
- respondent
jktLFkku ljdkj tfj;s yksd vfHk;kstd
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- SOSA/1354/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court