Dream11’s parent company appeals with NCLAT against NCLT’s recent order

The insolvency petition, initiated by the resolution professional of Reward Solutions, had in NCLT alleged that Sporta defaulted on dues amounting to Rs 7.61 crore.

By
  • Storyboard18,
| February 14, 2024 , 1:45 pm
The fantasy sports brand is also the co-presenter for IPL 2024 on both Disney Star and JioCinema. (Image source: Moneycontrol)
The fantasy sports brand is also the co-presenter for IPL 2024 on both Disney Star and JioCinema. (Image source: Moneycontrol)

Fantasy gaming company Dream 11’s parent company Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd, has lodged an appeal with the National Company Law Appellate (NCLAT) in Delhi against the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai’s recent order.

The order by NCLT Mumbai accepted an insolvency petition against the fantasy gaming giant. The NCLAT Chairperson’s court will hear the case on February 14.

The insolvency petition, initiated by the resolution professional of Reward Solutions, had in NCLT alleged that Sporta defaulted on dues amounting to Rs 7.61 crore. NCLT’s order appointed Madan Bajarang Lal Vaishnawa as the interim resolution professional to oversee the resolution process.

According to CNBC TV-18, the NCLT Mumbai prohibited the institution of suits, continuation of pending proceedings, and asset disposal by the fantasy gaming giant.

The moratorium order remains in effect until the completion of the insolvency resolution process or the approval of a resolution plan or liquidation order by the court, the order had said.

Reward Solutions, the petitioner in NCLT, claimed Sporta failed to pay license fees from the agreement’s outset, while Sporta argued that COVID-19 hindered negotiations.

The company also contested the ambiguity surrounding the premises’ ownership, asserting confusion between Reward Solutions and a third party, Mangalam Vanijya.

Sporta Technologies disclosed the Enforcement Directorate’s provisional attachment order related to the leased premises.

Sporta Technologies has contended that the debt default occurred within the Section 10A period of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), making it ineligible for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
However, the tribunal ruled that Sporta owed operational debt to Reward Solutions, with no pre-existing dispute over the debt between the parties.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *