AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, MEMBER (J)
CP (IB) No. 474/ND/2025: J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity, the “Petitioner” or “Financial Creditor”) has preferred the present petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity, “IBC, 2016”), read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process qua M/s. Bliss Abode Private Limited (hereinafter referred as “Respondent” or “Corporate Debtor”).
The Respondent i.e., Bliss Abode Private Limited, a private Ltd. company incorporated on 06.03.2017 with CIN U70109DL2017PTC313912 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, is engaged in the business of construction and real estate, having its registered office at 40, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi-110003, and is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. As has been alleged in Part-II of the petition, the Authorized Share Capital of the Respondent Company is Rs. 72,75,00,000/- and its Paid-up Share Capital is Rs. 72, 75,00,000/-.
The Petitioner, M/s J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and is registered as an Asset Reconstruction Company under Section 3 of the SARFAESI Act.
In the Petition preferred by it, the Petitioner has espoused thus:-
I. In or around 2017, the Corporate Debtor approached Sammaan Capital Limited (“SCL”) (formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited) seeking financial assistance for its business requirements. In acceptance of the requests, SCL sanctioned and disbursed five loan facilities to the Corporate Debtor, with its sister concern, M/s RAB Enterprises (India) Pvt. Ltd., standing as a co-borrower. The loan facilities were in terms of the following Loan Agreements:
Loan Agreement dated 13.07.2017 – ₹90 crore
Loan Agreement dated 05.10.2017 – ₹75 crore
Loan Agreement dated 05.10.2017 – ₹67 crore
Loan Agreement dated 05.10.2017 – ₹60 crore
Loan Agreement dated 05.10.2017 – ₹83 crore
II. In the process of extension of financial facility (Loans 1 to 5), the following documents were executed:
Personal Guarantees by Mr. Rana Kapoor and Mrs. Bindu Kapoor;
Memorandum of Entry dated 23.08.2019, recording the deposit of title deeds of property at 40, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi, thereby creating a first-ranking mortgage in favour of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., acting as Security Trustee;
Deed of Hypothecation dated 08.08.2019 executed by the Corporate Debtor in favour of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, acting as the Security Trustee for the benefit of SCL, whereby a first ranking charge was created in favour of the Security Trustee over the receivables arising from the Amrita Shergill Property.
Pledge/Charge Agreement dated 21.08.2019, executed by RAB Enterprises and Mrs. Bindu Kapoor, creating a first-ranking pledge over the shares of the Corporate Debtor.
III. The Loan Agreements had a tenure of 60 months, repayable through EMIs, and defined several “Events of Default,” including any “Material Adverse Effect” impacting the ability of any Obligor to perform its obligations. All Obligors including the personal guarantors, mortgagors, hypothecators and pledgers were jointly and severally liable for repayment.
IV. During the subsistence of the loans, criminal investigations initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation against the personal guarantors materially impaired their repayment capacity. SCL formed the view that these developments adversely affected the repayment ability of the Corporate Debtor and its Obligors. Consequently, SCL issued a Loan Recall Notice dated 09.03.2020, demanding repayment of ₹388,42,96,875/- and ₹4,36,46,048/- towards TDS within five days.
V. Parallelly, SCL invoked the arbitration clause and filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By order dated 13.03.2020, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the secured assets. As the Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the Recall Notice, the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 09.06.2020, leading to the issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
VI. Arbitration proceedings thereafter culminated in an Arbitral Award dated 28.03.2023 in favour of SCL, directing the Corporate Debtor and its Obligors to pay a sum of ₹453,75,24,066/-, along with ₹4,36,46,048/- towards TDS and interest at 11.25% p.a. from 19.06.2020 until the date of the award.
VII. The Corporate Debtor has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi challenging the Award. The petition is still pending, and no interim stay against the Arbitral Award has been granted.
VIII. Despite the Award and its enforceability, the Corporate Debtor has not made any payments towards the amounts directed therein and has also failed to comply with the repayment obligations under the Loan Agreements, thereby committed default as defined in section 3(12) of IBC, 2016.
IX. On 29.03.2025, SCL executed an Assignment Agreement in favour of the Petitioner, assigning all its rights, title, interest and securities in respect of Loans 1 to 5. The Assignment Agreement has been duly registered, and the Petitioner has stepped into the shoes of SCL and is now entitled to enforce all associated rights and remedies.
X. As on 30.06.2025, the Corporate Debtor stands in default of a sum of ₹922,46,13,471/- (“Total Default Amount”). The default occurred on multiple occasions, including:
14.03.2020 – Non-payment pursuant to the Loan Recall Notice;
18.09.2020 – Failure to repay amounts under the Demand Notice;
Continuous non-payment during arbitral proceedings (29.06.2020 to 28.02.2023);
28.02.2023 – Crystallisation of liability under the Arbitral Award;
29.05.2023 – Failure to pay the Awarded Amount within the stipulated period;
Continued default in response to the Legal Notice issued by the Petitioner
Ongoing failure to repay dues under Loans 1 to 5.
XI. The defaults continue to subsist, and neither the Corporate Debtor nor its Obligors have discharged their liability till date.
As per the Loan Agreements, the borrower was liable to repay the entire loan to the lender in such manner as agreed by the lender and as per Payment / Repayment Schedule or as per revised Payment / Repayment Schedule. Clause 3 of the Loan Agreement dated 13.07.2017 reads thus:-
From the aforementioned it is clear that it was the prerogative of lender to devise the modalities of repayment.
In the wake, the Petitioner has preferred the captioned petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, pleading for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the Respondent. Mr. Ankit Jain is authorized by J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. to file the captioned application on its behalf.
As can be seen from Part IV of the Petition, the Petitioner has claimed that the CD has defaulted to pay an amount of ₹922,46,13,471/-. The relevant excerpt of Part IV of the petition, reads thus:-
2 AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEFAULT OCCURRED (ATTACH THE WORKINGS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF
AMOUNT AND DAYS OF DEFAULT IN TABULAR FORM)
The petitioner has also filed a table containing the outstanding sums payable under the Loan Agreements for Loans 1 to 5, which reads thus:-
The Financial Creditor has inter alia relied upon the following documents:
A copy of the Board Resolution dated March 29, 2025.
A copy of the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor as obtained from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
A copy of the Sanction Letter dated 22.06.2017 executed between Sammaan Capital Limited, the Corporate Debtor and RAB Enterprises (India) Private Limited.
A copy of the Loan Agreement dated 13.07.2017 executed between Sammaan Capital Limited, the Corporate Debtor and RAB Enterprises (India) Private Limited.
A copy of the Sanction Letters dated 27.09.2017 executed by Sammaan Capital Limited in favour of the Corporate Debtor.
A copy of the Loan Agreements dated 05.10.2017 executed between Sammaan Capital Limited and the Corporate Debtor.
A copy of the five Deeds of Guarantee executed by Mr. Rana Kapoor and Mrs. Bindu Kapoor in favour of Sammaan Capital Limited.
A copy of the Memorandum of Entry dated 23.08.2019 executed by the Corporate Debtor.
A copy of the Deed of Hypothecation dated 08.08.2019 executed by the Corporate Debtor.
A copy of the Pledge/Charge Agreement dated 21.08.2019 executed by M/s RAB Enterprises (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Mrs Bindu Kapoor.
A copy of the Loan Recall Notice dated 09.03.2020 issued by Sammaan Capital Limited to the Corporate Debtor and the obligors.
A copy of the Order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in O.M.P. (I) (COMM) No. 72 of 2020 titled as "Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Bliss Abode Private Limited & Ors.".
A copy of the Notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act issued by Sammaan Capital Limited to the Corporate Debtor and the obligors.
A copy of the Notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by Sammaan Capital Limited to the Corporate Debtor and the obligors.
A copy of the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings titled as "Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Bliss Abode Private Limited & Ors.".
A copy of the Assignment Agreement dated March 29, 2025 executed between Sammaan Capital Limited and the Petitioner.
Relying upon the aforesaid documents, the Petitioner has prayed for initiation of CIRP against the Respondent.
In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent it has been espoused thus:-
I. The Petition has been illegally instituted as an attempt to execute an Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2023 passed between Sammaan Capital Limited (“SCL”, formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited) and the Corporate Debtor, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petitioner is attempting to misuse the IBC as a recovery mechanism for a disputed debt quantified at ₹922,46,13,471/-, and thereby derail the Corporate Debtor’s pending challenge to the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
II. Clause 12 of the Loan Agreements lists several ‘Events of Default,’ and Clause 12.1.8 is particularly relevant. Clause 12.1.8 empowers SCL to treat any event or circumstance if perceived by SCL to have a “Material Adverse Effect” or likely to adversely affect the ability of the Obligors to perform obligations as an Event of Default. The Corporate Debtor contends that this clause is highly one sided and discretionary, unfairly favouring the lender, but it had no choice but to accept such terms under the circumstances.
III. Under Schedule II of each Loan Agreement, the Corporate Debtor was only required to service interest payments for the first 48 months, with principal repayment commencing only at the end of 60 months from first disbursal. Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor had been regular in all interest and TDS payments, and no payment default had occurred as on 08.03.2020.
IV. On 09.03.2020, SCL abruptly issued a Loan Recall Notice, demanding repayment of approx. ₹388.42 crore plus ₹4.36 crore TDS within 5 days, without issuance of any prior default notice. The recall notice alleged an “Event of Default” on account of a Material Adverse Effect, but without any explanation, particulars, or supporting material.
V. The Corporate Debtor asserts that the recall notice was vague, unsubstantiated, and contrary to the factual position of continuous timely payments. According to the Corporate Debtor, the recall notice has since been misused by SCL, allegedly in collusion with JCF, to initiate multiple proceedings across different forums, amounting to harassment to CD and forum shopping.
VI. Pursuant to the dispute resolution mechanism under the Loan Agreements, SCL initiated arbitration proceedings (“SCL Arbitration”), wherein the Sole Arbitrator appointed by SCL reserved the matter for award on 08.05.2021. However, the Award was ultimately passed only on 28.02.2023, after an unexplained delay of 1 year, 9 months and 20 days.
VII. The Award suffers from several infirmities viz.:
i.Post-facto Justifications for Loan Recall Notice (2020 LRN): The Arbitrator failed to consider that the grounds now relied upon by SCL to justify the 2020 LRN particularly the involvement of one of the guarantors in unrelated legal proceedings were never a part of the recall notice itself. The Respondent argues that the recall notice was issued without reasons, and subsequent pleadings before the arbitrator introduced fresh grounds which could not cure the illegality of the notice.
ii.Non-consideration of Mandatory RBI Moratorium Circulars: The Respondent asserts that the Arbitrator overlooked the binding RBI Circulars dated 27.03.2020, 17.04.2020, and 23.05.2020, mandating a moratorium on instalments falling due between 01.03.2020 and 31.08.2020 for all banks and NBFCs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Assn. v. Union of India, (2021) 8 SCC 511 recorded the RBI’s categorical submission that the moratorium was applicable to all financial institutions, leaving no discretion. The Award allegedly fails to consider that the 2020 LRN was issued in violation of these mandatory directions.
iii.Erroneous Imposition of Joint and Several Liability: The Award is also assailed on the ground that it appears to hold all obligors liable jointly and severally for the entire awarded sum, despite the fact that some obligors were responsible only for a limited portion of the loan facilities.
iv.Award Vitiated by Delay: The Respondent contends that the substantial and unexplained delay in pronouncement of the Award renders it violative of public policy and fundamentally contrary to Indian arbitration jurisprudence.
VIII. Aggrieved by the Award, the Corporate Debtor preferred a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in August 2023, challenging the Award as patently illegal and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
IX. SCL has also filed an Execution Petition under Section 36 seeking enforcement of the Award. Both matters are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court, with the next date of hearing fixed for 12.11.2025.
X. The petition is not maintainable also on the following grounds:-
a. Debt and Default Not Crystallised
i.The Corporate Debtor submits that the present petition is not maintainable because the alleged debt and default have not crystallised in law. Under Section 7(5) of the IBC, this Tribunal must be satisfied that a financial debt exists and that the Corporate Debtor has committed a default. In this case, the alleged debt arises solely from an arbitral Award dated 28.02.2023 passed between Sammaan Capital Limited (“SCL”) and the Corporate Debtor, which is presently under challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
ii.Since the Award has been challenged, the foundational basis of the alleged debt primarily the 2020 Loan Recall Notice is disputed and has not attained finality. Consequently, no debt can be said to have matured or default to have occurred for the purpose of admission under Section 7 of the IBC.
iii.The objection under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation, Act 1996 involves adjudication of multiple disputed questions of fact and law, which this Tribunal, exercising summary jurisdiction, cannot determine. Until the Award attains finality, it is not legally possible to conclude that a debt exists or that a default has occurred.
iv.It is contended that the invocation of the IBC in these circumstances is mala fide and constitutes an abuse of process, reducing the IBC to a coercive recovery mechanism rather than a tool for corporate insolvency resolution.
b. IBC Invoked as a Tool for Executing an Arbitral Award
i.The Corporate Debtor submits that the present petition is a disguised attempt to execute the arbitral Award under the guise of IBC proceedings. The Petitioner and its predecessor-in-interest, SCL, have failed to secure execution of the Award before multiple forums, including the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the Ld. ACMM, New Delhi, and the Ld. PMLA Special Court, Bombay.
ii.The Petitioner has treated the pronouncement of the Award as the trigger for filing the Section 7 petition, despite there being no insolvency related default. The Corporate Debtor alleges that the Petition is primarily aimed at gaining control over the mortgaged property at 40, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi (“40 ASM”), which had been previously attached under statutory proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA and is subject to subsisting status quo orders.
iii.The chronology of events demonstrates a pattern of forum shopping:
a. 28.02.2023: Arbitral Award pronounced.
b. 09.07.2020–01.01.2021: ED attaches 40 ASM via Provisional Attachment Order, subsequently confirmed by the Ld. PMLA Adjudicating Authority.
c. 27.01.2021–12.08.2025: Status quo maintained over 40 ASM by the Ld. PMLA Appellate Tribunal.
d. September-October 2024: Petitioner attempts to obtain possession under SARFAESI Act; receiver appointed and subsequently recalled due to existing ED attachment.
e. 13.12.2024–14.11.2025: Petitioner files application under Section 8(8) of the PMLA seeking release of 40 ASM; proceedings are pending.
iv.The Petitioner and its assignee, JCF, initiated the present IBC proceedings only after failing to secure possession of 40 ASM under other legal fora, thereby misusing the insolvency process to indirectly gain control over the property.
v.The JCF has not sought substitution in the pending Section 34 proceedings before the High Court, and has directly approached this Tribunal, evidencing an intention to circumvent ongoing legal challenges.
vi.The petition constitutes a clear case of misuse of the IBC, falling under the mischief of Section 65, as it has been instituted:
a. Solely for recovery of alleged dues, in gross abuse of process;
b. By suppressing material facts and circumstances already on record;
c. Dishonestly, with an intention entirely alien to the object and spirit of the IBC.
c. Barred by Limitation
i.The Corporate Debtor submits that the present petition is barred by limitation. It is settled law that a petition under Section 7 of the IBC must be filed within three years from the date of default, as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
ii.Without prejudice and without admitting the maintainability of the Petition, the Corporate Debtor contends that if the default is considered to have arisen from the issuance of the 2020 Loan Recall Notice dated 09.03.2020, rather than from the date of the Arbitral Award, the present petition has been instituted more than two years and four months beyond the limitation period, rendering it time-barred.
iii.Further, the Petitioner has not alleged or demonstrated that the Corporate Debtor has admitted the existence of any debt or default that could justify an extension of limitation. In addition, due to the Petitioner’s mala fide conduct and suppression of material facts, no sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay.
iv.On these grounds, the Corporate Debtor submits that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and is not maintainable under the IBC.
d. Initiation of CIRP Would Frustrate Pending Arbitration Proceedings and Cause Irreparable Harm
The admission of the present petition under Section 7 of the IBC would have far reaching and irreversible consequences:
a. Upon admission, a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC would prohibit the institution of new proceedings or continuation of pending suits, including the ongoing Section 34 challenge to the arbitral Award.
b. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) would assume control of the Corporate Debtor’s management, assets, finances, and operations, effectively ousting the existing Board of Directors.
Once CIRP is initiated, the existing management would lose control, creating a real risk that the IRP or Resolution Professional may not pursue the pending Section 34 Petition, thereby prejudicing the Corporate Debtor’s rights.
Since SCL, and now its assignee JCF, is the sole creditor, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) would be entirely controlled by the Petitioner, creating a conflict of interest. The Corporate Debtor apprehends that the Petitioner could act to alienate the 40 ASM property at an undervalued price, based on past conduct in related proceedings.
The existing management, being fully acquainted with the company’s affairs, is best placed to safeguard its interests and ensure that the pending arbitration and related proceedings are effectively pursued.
The Corporate Debtor submits that the Petitioner’s true motive in seeking admission of this petition is to oust the present management and halt the ongoing legal challenge to the Award, rather than to genuinely resolve insolvency.
We heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Indubitably, the CD had availed the financial facility from the petitioner. The particulars of the documents to the effect are given in Part-IV of the application. The Applicant has also enclosed with the application the record of default reported to NeSL. The Form D issued by the NeSL reads thus:-
As far as the plea regarding the financial facility is concerned, even the CD has not disputed the same. The only plea raised by CD is that for first sixty months it was liable to pay the interest only and it was only after expiry of such period, the liability to repay the principal amount could arise. However, it is not the case of the CD that even after expiry of sixty months, it offered any schedule to repay the amount of debt. Apparently, the CD failed to repay the outstanding amount of debt in terms of the Recall Notice, on 14.03.2020 as also in terms of the Demand Notice, on 18.09.2020. Besides, the default continued during the pendency of Arbitral Proceedings from 29.06.2020 till 28.02.2023. It is not so that the liability of the CD to pay the amount of debt occurred only after the Award dated 28.02.2023. The CD had admittedly availed the financial facility from the FC and had not honoured the Recall Notice. The Recall Notice was issued on 09.03.2020 by the Petitioner, recalling the entire loan facility. The CD failed to make the payment in terms of the Recall Notice and the outstanding amount remained over due for a period of more than 90 days. Thus, the account of the CD could be declared as NPA on 09.06.2020. In the Recall Notice dated 09.03.2020 (Annexure P-11), the FC could specifically allege that the default had already occurred. The schedule to the Recall Notice contains the details of the outstanding amount of debt. It is the case of the CD itself that for a period of sixty months it was liable to pay only interest and not the principal amount. Thus, apparently it did not repay the principal amount and committed default.
The liability to pay the amount of debt and default committed by the CD is not founded on the Arbitral Award along, but is with reference to Loan Agreement and liability to repay the amount of debt, defaulted to be paid. The schedule 1 to Recall Notice reads thus:-
As far as the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2023 is concerned, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1659 of 2020) the same can be relied upon to deal with the issue of limitation. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that a decree and/or final adjudication would give rise to a fresh period of limitation. Paras 25, 130 and 131 reads thus:-
“25.Another question which arises for the consideration of this Court is, whether a final judgment and decree of the DRT in favour of the Financial Creditor, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action to the Financial Creditor to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC within three years from the date of the final judgment and decree, and/or within three years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Recovery. XXXX
130.In effect, this Court speaking through Nariman J., approved the proposition that an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC may be time barred, even though some other recovery proceedings might have been instituted earlier, well within the period of limitation, in respect of the same debt. However, it would have been a different matter, if the applicant had approached the Adjudicating Authority after obtaining a final order and/or decree in the recovery proceedings, if the decree remained unsatisfied. This Court held that a decree and/or final adjudication would give rise to a fresh period of limitation for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
131.It is true that the finding of Patna High Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited v. Rajhans Steel Limited (supra) was rendered in the context of Section 434(1)(b) of the Companies Act 1956, which provided that a company would be deemed to be unable to pay its debts if execution or other process issued on a decree or order of any Court or Tribunal in favour of a creditor of the company was returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.”
Apparently, the present petition has been filed within three years of the Arbitral Award. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1659 of 2020) also provides that in terms of the provisions of Section 238 of IBC, 2016, the present proceedings would continue notwithstanding anything in consistent thereto. Para 84 of the judgment reads thus:-
“84.IBC has overriding effect over other laws. Section 238 of the IBC provides that the provisions of the IBC shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, for the time being in force, or any other instrument, having effect by virtue of such law.”
Apparently, even after the Arbitral Award, the CD has not made the payment of amount of debt. Filling of appeal by it to challenge the Award is in a way admission of default. In terms of the provisions of Section 7(3) of IBC, 2016, the FC should along with the application furnish record of the default recorded with IU (Information Utility) and should provide the name of RP. The application satisfies both the requirements. The name of the proposed IP has been given in Part-III of the application. The Part-III reads thus:-
The Form 2 furnished by the IP has been placed on record as enclosure to the application. In the said Form, the IP has declared that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. Thus, the requirements of Section 7 (3) and (5) (a) of IBC, 2016 are satisfied. In the wake, we are left with no option but to admit the present petition and initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. Ordered accordingly.
In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is, hereby ordered thus:-
As a consequence of the Application C.P. (IB) 474/ND/ 2025 being admitted in terms of Section 7 of the Code, moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Code, shall follow in relation to the Respondent/(CD) as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 14(1) of the Code. However, during the pendency of the moratorium period, terms of Section 14(2) to 14(3) of the Code shall come into force.
In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of the Code, we direct the IRP or the RP, as the case may be to make a public announcement immediately with regard to the admission of this application under Section 7 of the Code. The expression ‘immediately' means within three days as clarified by Explanation to Regulation 6 (1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
During the CIRP period, the management of the Respondent/CD shall vest in the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, in terms of Section 17 of the IBC. The officers and managers of the Respondent/CD shall provide all documents in their possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP within one week from the date of receipt of this Order, in default of which coercive steps will follow. There shall be no future opportunities in this regard.
The IRP is expected to take full charge of the Respondent/CD's assets, and documents without any delay whatsoever. He is also free to take police assistance in this regard, and this Court hereby directs the Police Authorities to render all assistance as may be required by the IRP in this regard.
The IRP or the RP, as the case may be shall submit to this Adjudicating Authority periodical report with regard to the progress of the CIRP in respect of the Respondent/Corporate Debtor.
The Applicant is directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh only) with the IRP to meet the immediate expenses. The amount, however, will be subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors as accounted for by Interim Resolution Professional and shall be paid back to the Applicant.
In terms of Section 7(7) of the Code, the Registry/Court Officer is hereby directed to communicate a copy of the order to the Applicant/FC, the Respondent/CD, the IRP and the Registrar of Companies, NCR, New Delhi, by Speed Post and by email, at the earliest but not later than seven days from today. The Registrar of Companies shall update his website by updating the status of the Respondent/CD and specific mention regarding admission of this petition must be notified.
The Registry/Court Officer is further directed to send a copy of this order to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India for their record.