0% found this document useful (0 votes)
82 views2 pages

Legal Insights: Insolvency Appeal

Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
82 views2 pages

Legal Insights: Insolvency Appeal

Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2040 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:


Ganesh Ashok Nanaware …Appellant

Versus

Manomay Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Gupta, Advocate for R-2.

ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)

07.11.2024: Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the

Adjudicating Authority has admitted Section 7 application filed by the

Respondent which was founded on three MOUs entered between the parties,

which was in nature of sale transaction of assets. The amount which is now

being claimed as debt was the amount retained by the Appellant out of the

larger amount of Rs.91 Crores for performance of certain obligations, which

are delineated in the MOU between the parties. It is submitted that the debt

was never financial debt. It is submitted that a suit has been filed for the

same amount which is pending in the Bombay High Court as well as

proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to

dishonoured cheques is also pending. It is submitted that the Adjudicating

Authority has not correctly adverted to the nature of the transaction and erred

in holding the transaction as financial debt relying on the letter which was

written by the Appellant during the pendency of the proceeding for entering a

settlement between the parties.

Cont’d…/
2

Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the

nature of the debt was financial debt and the Adjudicating Authority did not

commit any error in admitting Section 7 application. He further submits that

own showing of the Corporate Debtor indicates that they treated transaction

as financial debt.

Submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties need

consideration. Issue notice. Let Reply be filed by the Respondents within

three weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this Appeal on 19.12.2024.

In the meantime, in pursuance of the impugned order CoC be not

constituted. The IRP shall ensure that the Corporate Debtor is run as a going

concern and construction, if any, shall continue with the assistance of the

management and officers of the Corporate Debtor.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan]


Chairperson

[Barun Mitra]
Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka]
Member (Technical)
Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2040 of 2024

You might also like