abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court P.P.Thomas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022 C.S.No.190 of 2012 Judgment reserved on 26.04.2022 Judgment pronounced on 13.07.2022 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Civil Suit No.190 of 2012 and Application Nos.6042, 9635 and 9636 of 2018 P.P.Thomas, Government Contractor, Palannattil House, Kunnackal P.O., Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District, Kerala682 316. ... Plaintiff vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to the Government PWD, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai600 009. 2. Superintending Engineer, PWD, Periyar Dam Special Circle, Madurai625 002 Presently, at PWD, Water Resources Organization Periyar Vaigai Basin Circle Near Central Market, Madurai625 001. ... Defendants Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. 1908, praying to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff seeking (A) for a declaration that the Defendants committed breach of contract under Agreement No.8/SE/PDC/198889 and prevented performance and completion of the work within the period stipulated in the agreement, which expired on 21.06.1992 and that the rejection of the claims for payment of the unpaid value of the works carried out and other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/79 C.S.No.190 of 2012 amounts due to him notified on 11.07.1993 by the First Defendant on 05.06.1996 and 03.07.1993 is illegal, unjustified & invalid and consequently, the First Defendant is liable for payment at the market rates prevailed for the works delayed beyond 21.06.1990, by disgorging the unjust enrichment obtained by nonpayment of the same, to compensate the losses caused to the Plaintiff, to restore his position ante; (B) for a declaration that the penalty of Rs.80,000/ (Rupees Eight Thousand only) imposed on the Plaintiff alleging slow progress is illegal, unjustified & invalid and consequently, the First Defendant is liable to compensate the loss by refund of the amount illegally recovered along with interest thereon at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization; (C)directing the First Defendant to pay Rs.2,60,75,350/ (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only), towards unpaid cost of Rs.39,900 cum of broken stones obtained by blasting of hard rock in the Reserved Forest in the Kerala State on obtaining permission for the same on 23.12.1989, in liew of the buffer stock of blasted stones in the dump yard near the Vents of the Additional Regulator of the Periyar Dam, which was washed off in the flood as notified at Rs.64,22,500/ including interest thereon at 18% p.a. till date of payment by disgorging the unjust enrichment obtained by the Defendants; (D) directing the First Defendant to pay Rs.4,31,04,780/ (Rupees Four Crores Thirty One lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty only), towards unpaid market value of works carried out between 21.07.1990 and 23.05.1994 notified a Rs.1,06,16,941/ including interest thereon at 18% p.a. From 23.05.1994 onwards till 23.09.2011 and payable with inte
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission New Police Line Road, opposite to C.M. House Kanke Road, Ranchi834008. 2. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Through its Managing Director HEC Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 834004. 3. Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited Through its Managing Director JUSNL Building, Kusai Colony, Doranda Ranchi 834002. ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv. Page 1 of 38 Judgement in Appeal No. 131 of 2021 & IA No. 2609 of 2023 Mr. Deepak Khurana Mr. Vineet Tayal Mr. Abhishek Bansal Mr. Tejasv Anand Mr. Ashwini Tak Ms. Nishtha Wadhwa Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. Farrukh Rasheed for R1 Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh Ms. Ekta Bharti Mr. Shwetank Singh for R2 Mr. Anup Kumar Mr. Saurabh Jain Ms. Shruti Singh for R3 JUDGEMENT PER HON'BLE MR. SANDESH KUMAR SHARMA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. The captioned Appeal has been filed by M/s. Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited (in short "Appellant") challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 09.01.2021 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order") passed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "JSERC" or "State Commission") in Petition No. 03 of 2018, filed by the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (in short "JBVNL"). Parties 2. The Appellant is a generating company under Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act, 2003, interalia, has set up a 540 MW (2x270 MW) thermal power project Page 2 of 38 Judgement in Appeal No. 131 of 2021 & IA No. 2609 of 2023 located at SaraikelaKharsawn, District in Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as "Project"). 3. The Respondent No. 1, Jharakhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission has been vested with the powers to adjudicate the matter under dispute, interalia, has passed the Impugned Order in Case No. 03 of 2018 under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. The Respondent No. 2, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited is a distribution licensee engaged in the business of distribution and retail sale of electricity in the State of Jharkhand. 5. The Respondent No. 3, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited is the State Transmission Utility in the State of Jharkhand. Facts of the Appeal 6. On 31.10.2005, a Memorandum of Understanding (in short "MoU") was entered into between the Government of Jharkhand (in short "GoJ") and the Appellant for establishment of 1000 MW in phases of 2 X 250 MW (first phase) and 2 X 250 MW (second phase), whereby, the State Government agreed to facilitate connecting the proposed power station to the Grid of Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. (in short "PGCIL"), at a convenient point, for evacuation of power from the proposed power station of the Appellant and also agreed that the Government of Jharkhand/Distribution Licensee shall have the first right of claim on purchase upto 25% of the power delivered to the system by the proposed Page 3 of 38 Judgement in Appeal No. 131 of 2021 & IA No. 2609 of 2023 power station of the Appellant, under the Power Purchase Agreement (in short "PPA") to be mutually agreed to, an
Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates for R2. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.256 & 257 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Bishwanath Traders & Investment Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ashish Singh, Resolution Professional of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 1 Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R2. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta and Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocates for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 442 & 443 of 2024 & I.A. No.2763, 2764 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Committee of Creditors of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rajshree Chaudhary and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for Interveners in I.A. No.2763/2024. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These Appeal(s) by Resolution Professional ("RP") of M/s Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.; the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") of Vibrant Buildwell Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA") of the Corporate Debtor ("CD")has been filed against the same order dated 24.01.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173 of 2023 filed by Raj Kumar Sahani, Suspended Director and Shareholder of the CD and IA No.5458 of 2022 filed by RP for approval of Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order allowed IA No.4173 of 2023 accep
Bangalore District Court Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara ... vs M/S Struct Geotech Research ... on 16 November, 2024 Digitally signed KABC170001592024 by SUDINDRA SUDINDRA NATH S NATH S Date: 2024.11.20 10:45:35 +0530 IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH84) Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L., LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU. COM.AP.No.10/2024 Dated on this 16th day of November 2024 Petitioner/s : Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Office at N.R.Square, Bengaluru 560 002. Represented by Chief Commissioner (By Sri.S.N.Prashanth Chandra, Advocate) // versus // Respondent/s 1. M/s.Struct Geotech Research Laboratories (P) Ltd., (STRUCT), No.588, 2nd Main, 6th Block, Hosakerehalli cross, Banashankari 3rd stage, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru 560 085. Represented through its Authorised Signatory, Mrs.Vinutha Prakash, 2. Sri.L.Narayana Swamy, Former Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Retd), Sole Arbitrator, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru 2 CT 1390_Com.AP.102024_Judgment.doc KABC170001592024 (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavana, Race Course Road, Bengaluru 560 001, Karnataka. (R1 By Sri.RKRC, Advocate R2 Arbitrator) Date of Institution of suit : 11.01.2024 Nature of the suit : Construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders Date of commencement of : recording of the evidence Date on which the Judgment : 16/11/2024 was pronounced. : Year/s Month/s Day/s Total duration 00 10 05 JUDGMENT This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the respondents before the learned arbitrator challenging the arbitral award dated 04022023 passed by the learned sole arbitrator, namely respondent No. 2 herein, in AC 9 of 2022 awarding ₹ 6,11,13,055/ along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of invoice till the date of payment, in favour of 3 CT 1390_Com.AP.102024_Judgment.doc KABC170001592024 the claimant before the learned arbitrator, namely the respondent No. 1 herein. 2. On issuance of notice of the present petition, the respondent No. 1 / claimant has entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed objections to the present petition. The notice to the learned arbitrator is dispensed with. 3. The arbitration records have been secured from the arbitration centre. 4. However, after the matter was reserved for judgment, it was noticed that, as per the arbitration records, the claim statement and other records and documents produced by the claimant have been returned to the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, and therefore the respondent No. 1 / Claimant was called upon to produce the same by order sheet dated 2410 4 CT 1390_Com.AP.102024_Judgment.doc KABC170001592024 2024. On 5112024, respondent No. 1 / claimant produced the claim statement and documents of claimant in 6 volumes & the same were taken on record. 5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records of the case. 6. The only point that arise
Karnataka High Court M/S Enmas Gb Power Systems Projects Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 19 March, 2025 1 NC: 2025:KHC:11298 WP No. 29610 of 2017 R DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 29610 OF 2017 (GMRES) BETWEEN: M/S ENMAS GB POWER SYSTEMS PROJECTS LTD.(EGB), 5TH FLOOR, GUNA BUILDING ANNEX, 443 ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET CHENNAI600 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. N.K.GOPINATH ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL P P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, NO.49, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTHERN BLOCK KHANIJABHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR(MSME) Digitally signed & MEMBER SECRETARY, MSEFC. by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH 2. LOTUS POWER GEAR PRIVATE LTD., COURT OF NO.12/13 KM, KARNATAKA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA BANGALORE560 062. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH P, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNSELSERVED) 2 NC: 2025:KHC:11298 WP No. 29610 of 2017 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD.14.3.2017 AT ANNEXL PASSED BY THE R1 AND DIRECT THE R1 TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE MANNER STIPULATED UNDER SEC.18(3) OF THE MSME ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL FOR NON PROSECUTION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: i. Issue writ order of direction quashing the award dated 14.03.2017 at (AnnexureL), passed by the 1st respondent, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Issue writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to conduct the proceedings in the manner stipulated under Sec.18(3) of the MSME Act, in the interest of justice and equity. iii. Issue writ of certiorari to issue any other appropriate writ of order of direction to the respondents deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be a private company providing economical solutions for the infrastructure, power and Industrial sectors. The petitioner had issued a purchase order to 2nd respondent Company on 14.02.2013 for supply of certain materials at the cost of Rs.22,570,000/ with a gross value of Rs.25,886,845.04/ inclusive of 3 NC: 2025:KHC:11298 WP No. 29610 of 2017 taxes. The entire payment not having been made, the 2nd respondent had initiated conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (hereinafter for short MSMED Act) for recovery of the balance money. 3. The matter being taken up by the Council in Case No.1/2016, there were several meetings held by the Council and finally an award was passed on 14.03.2017 directing the petitioner to make payment of sum of Rs.11,88,756/ towards the principal outstanding dues along with interest at three times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India. It is challen
Orissa High Court Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd. .... ... on 10 October, 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10Oct2025 17:50:14 W.P.(C) No.20210 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. .... Petitioner(s) versus Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd. .... Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sunil J. Mathews, Adv. versus For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. S.S.Padhy, Adv. DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING: 01.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred against the orders dated 24.9.2024, 19.06.2025 and 14.07.2025 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 arising out of Execution Case No. 585 of 2023 wherein the Learned Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the objections and supplementary objections filed by the Petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Page 1 of 30 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10Oct2025 17:50:14 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The Petitioner was awarded the work of "Provision of Additional VR Tank at Paradip Refinery" to the Opposite Party vide Letter of Award (LOA) dated 29.11.2017 for a contract value of Rs.20,86,26,058.50/, which was to be completed within a period of 18 months from the date of the LOA. 3. However, on 11.6.2018, the Opposite Party stopped work on the site. Despite multiple correspondence dated 29.6.2018, 23.7.2018 and 11.8.2018, work did not resume and thereafter it is alleged that the present Petitioner terminated the contract with the Opposite Party on 13.12.2018. 4. A work order was issued to another contractor on 9.4.2019 for completion of the balance work. 5. As the matter remained thus, the present Opposite Party obtained its registration as an MSME on 28.1.2021. The following year, on 12.8.2022, the Opposite Party filed MSEFC Case No. 56 of 2022 under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 seeking Rs.6,65,97,975/ towards principal amount and interest calculated up to 18.5.2022 for alleged illegal termination of the contract. 6. On 18.11.2022, the present Petitioner issued an email to block payments towards the Opposite Party on account of risk and cost recovery from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed an interim application for staying the operation of the email dated 18.11.2022 before the MSEFC. Page 2 of 30 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10Oct2025 17:50:14 7. While the I.A. was pending, the new contractor completed the work and a letter regarding the recovery amount was issued by the Petitioner to the Opposite Party on 22.3.2023. 8. The operation of the email dated 18.11.2022 was
Delhi High Court Orders Nangia Construction(I) Pvt. Ltd vs Telecommunication Consultants & Anr on 6 May, 2025 $~18 * + CS(OS) 3226/2015 & I.A. 3668/2016, I.A. 4927/2016, I.A. 11380/2025 NANGIA CONSTRUCTION(I) PVT. LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Raman K, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Varun Kapur, Adv. versus TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS & ANR. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr.Vikram Sharma, Advs. with Ms. Divya Vashishtha, AR for TCIl HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH ORDER % 06.05.2025 1. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a Settlement dated 11.04.2025 wherein an amount of Rs. 88,92,445/ as full and final settlement in respect of the Award dated 24.08.2015 shall be released by the defendant to the plaintiff after the statutory deductions, if any. Operative portion of the said Settlement is extracted below: "Now, therefore, it is mutually settled and agreed to between the Parties as under: 1. It is agreed by and between both the parties that an This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:44:16 amount of Rs. 88,92,445/ (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Five only) as final settlement of dues in respect of the Award dated 24.08.2015 will be released by TCIL after statutory deductions in favor of Mis Nangia after signing of this settlement deed and disposal of the case being CS (OS) No. 322612015 in terms of this Settlement Deed. 2. After signing of this Settlement Deed, TCIL will release the Bank Guarantee No. 66185 dated 18.07. I 985 presently valid till 31.05.2025amounting to Rs. 15 lakh issued by Canara Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 3. It has been agreed by both the parties that there will be no other claims or interest on such claims, against each other and that nothing shall be outstanding after the receipt of payment by Mis. Nangia from TCIL as mentioned above. 4. It is agreed by both the parties that TCIL shall not pay or bear any amount over and above the said agreed amount of Rs. 88,92,445/ (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Five only). Any amount over and above the said agreed amount, including but not limited to, any taxes, duties, levies, government dues etc. shall be borne by Mis. Nangia only. 5. It is agreed and declared that on execution
Piyush Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Prasad, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Lzafeer Ahmad. B.F. for R3 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 947, 1001 of 2021, 525, 526, 499, 612 of 2022 1 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 525 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: PLBB Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5654/2023) Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Ms. Akanksha Kaushik, Ms. Heena Kochar, Ms. Meena, Advocates, Lzafeer Ahmad. B.F. For Respondents: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar and Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocates. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 526 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2474 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.27 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5651/2023) Present: For Appellant: Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Praful Jindal, Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Amit Pareek, RP Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 947, 1001 of 2021, 525, 526, 499, 612 of 2022 2 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 499 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5656/2023) Present: For Appellant: Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Praful Jindal, Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Amit Pareek, RP Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocate for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 612 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43