Kushal Polysacks Pvt Ltd. vs Shree Ram Electrocast (Jharkhand) Pvt. Ltd.

Per: Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial)

The Court congregated through a hybrid mode.

The Ld. Counsels of both the parties were heard.

This petition has been preferred by Kushal Polysacks Pvt. Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Operational Creditor/OC’ to seek initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against respondent Shree Ram Electrocast, the ‘Corporate Debtor/CD’ under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for brevity, ‘I&B Code’.

OC is the Del Credere Agent (DCA) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), which will appear from DCA Agreement dated June 22, 2010 [Pg-33-49 of CP). Object and purport of the DCA agreement is to stand guarantee for goods sold and delivered and to ensure timely payment to IOCL for and on behalf of the customers.

As per the norms of IOCL, M/s Shree Ram Electrocast (Jharkhand) Pvt Ltd (CD) purchased goods/polymer granules from the IOCL, tagging the OC as their DCA.

As per the DCA agreement, any purchaser of good is required to raise indent, through their DCA with the IOCL. On approval of the indent by the DCA, supply is effected by IOCL and IOCL raises invoice upon the purchaser, tagging the enlisted DCA. DCA is required to pay the Invoice within 48 hours, otherwise 36% interest will be charged upon the DCA or existing bank guarantee of DCA will be invoked.

Thus, the CD after tagging the OC, has been purchasing goods/polymer granules since the Financial Year 2021-22 to 2022-23 and OC has continuously paid the value of the goods by maintaining running and continuous account, and lastly found dues of Rs. 2,32,86,934/- as on 30th Junc 2023.

The CD was unable and neglected, to pay the amount even after repeated reminder from OC and Indian Oil due to which IOCL marked the CD as defaulter and banned it to lift any IOCL material Pan India basis since.

As OC is the DCA, invoices were raised by IOCL as annexed in CP at pages-57 to 70 and not by OC directly upon CD because of the special nature of the DCA Agreement.

Operational debt under section 5(21) of IBC refers to claim arising out of goods or services. In the present case, purchaser of goods/CD raised indents for purchasing granules upon IOCL through OC/DCA. Once IOCL approves the requisitioned indent received from CD and agrees to supply the goods, IOCL raises invoice upon CD with copy marked to the OC and on tagging the enlisted OC/DCA. The details of the invoices have been set out in the ledger statements which were all part of the statutory notice dated July 3, 2023 issued by OC upon CD.

The CD never raised any dispute against any single invoice raised by IOCL as mentioned in the ledger statements which were part of the statutory notice also.

That the IOCL followed SAP software whereby, each and every detail of the transaction always provided to CD which includes Invoices. Physical copy of the invoices always forwarded with the transporter and CD always confirmed the same.

As a Del Credere Agent (DCA) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) which will appear from DCA Agreement dated June 22, 2010 [Pg-33-49 of CP), OC as DCA stood guarantee for payment of the total amount of value of the goods/polymer granules which was sold by IOCL to its customers. Reference is made to clause 5.1.1 of DCA Agreement at Pg-40 of CP.

As per clause 5.2 of DCA Agreement at pg-41 of CP, OC is solely responsible to recover dues from customers of IOCL

Payment made by OC on behalf of the CD to IOCL has been credited against the account of the CD and hence the present dues are limited between the CD and the OC. IOCL has already realized the default committed by the CD from the OC.

On September 23, 2021 CD being one of the customers of IOCL issued a letter to IOCL tagging OC as the authorized DCA in respect of the transaction for supply of goods by IOCL/seller to CD/buyer/customer [pg-50 of CP). CD thereafter submitted document before IOCL and official email of CD is at pg-51 of CP i.e dheerajagarwal@beekaygroup.co and thus the CD always accepted the terms and conditions of the DCA agreement.

From the financial year 2021-22, CD started lift/buy/purchase goods from IOCL and tagged OC as the registered DCA. IOCL raised invoices upon CD with copy marked to OC. Particulars of the invoices will also appear from the ledger statements for financial year 2023-24, which have been annexed at pg-107-126 and 127-128 of CP. Some of the invoices as sample have been annexed at pg-57-70 of CP, wherein the Code Number of OC as the DCA has been recorded.

Clause 5.2 of DCA agreement (pg-41) provides that DCA will be responsible to ensure timely payments within 48 hours, for the goods supplied and sold by IOCL to its customers failing which high rate of interest @ 36% per annum will be levied upon DCA by IOCL apart from the right available to IOCL to invoke the performance bank guarantee or to encash the cash deposit furnished by OC/DCA.

Clause 5.2.5 of DCA further provides (Pg-41 of CP) that the recovery of money from the customer will be the exclusive responsibility of DCA , the IOCL will not be responsible but if the customer fails to pay the value of the goods supplied to IOCL, the recorded DCA will have to pay the money on behalf of the customer to IOCL, and thereafter, the recorded DCA will be responsible to recover the same from the the customer.

The CD, as the customer of IOCL having not paid the entire amount payable to IOCL during the financial years 2021-2022 and 2023-24 a sum of Rs. 2,32,86,934/became payable by CD to IOCL, and therefore, OC as the DCA was compelled to make such payment to IOCL on behalf of CD, confirmed by mail dated 04th July, 2023 failing which huge interest component , @ 36% p.a and penalty would be levied upon OC.

Statutory notice under section 8 of IBC dated July 3, 2023 was issued by the advocate of OC upon CD (pg-129 to 165 of CP).

The Ld. Advocate of CD gave a combined reply to the statutory notice dated July 3, 2023 which was issued on behalf of OC and another statutory notice dated July 5, 2023 which was issued on behalf of OC but to another entity namely Samarth Fablon Private, subject matter of C.P.(IB) No. 14/KB/2024 which shows that Section 8 notice has been served. The Date of Default is March 29, 2023 and no payment from CD been received.

The reply to the statutory notice itself contains admissions at various places. The same is evident from pg-174, 175, 189 and 190 of CP.

The CD has admitted the claim of OC, as will appear from email dated July 4, 2023, which was issued from the official email ID of CD, namely, dheerajagarwal@beekaygroup.co,, pg-51 of CP. that a sum of Rs.2,32,86,934/- is payable by CD to OC and if IOCL agrees to give credit for Rs.81,22,896/-, then a sum of Rs. 1,51,64,308/- is payable by CD to OC. The admitted claim being more than the threshold limit the CP should be admitted.

In the sur-rejoinder filed by CD affirmed on July 29, 2024 at pg-3 thereof, CD has stated that email dated July 4, 2023 was not issued this email has been issued from dheerajagarwal@beekaygroup.co, Aforesaid attempt to deny the admission by way of an affidavit of the CD is complete fraud, upon this Tribunal because CD has registered the same email ID, i.e. dheerajagarwal@beekaygroup.co before IOCL while submitting its documents for registration as will appear from pg-51 of CP from the very inception, the CD had maintained the entire transaction from this registered Email of said Dheeraj Agarwal, one of the director and authorized person of CD, with the IOCL, and not from any other email.

While CD has admitted that after factoring various purported deductions and discounts to which CD was entitled to that the net outstanding amount ould come to more than the threshold limit payable by CD to OC. it is entitled to set off a sum of Rs.4.68 crore in view of the family settlement dated August 27, 2018 for a period when the CD and OC have not entered into any obligation. 5.5 This Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to adjudicate or decide set off or counterclaim which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority as has been authoritatively held in several judgments/decisions as under:-

ii) Vishal Doshi vs. Bank of India reported in 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 442 , para-11, 16, 17.

iii) AP Coated Drums and Barrels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh Dharmani reported in 2019 SCC OnLin NCLAT 549, para-8

The Board Resolution dated 18.11.2022, authorising Mr. Saumik Dutta to initiate proceedings, lacks clarity. Thus, no valid authority exists to initiate proceedings against Shree Ram Electrocast.

Both directors of Kushal (Naresh Kumar Agarwal and Kushal Agarwal) resigned on 22.11.2022, just four days after the alleged authorisation. Their resignation makes the Board Resolution ineffective. Further there is no subsequent authorisation by the existing Board is on record. Petition filed on 11.01.2024 is thus without authority and non-maintainable. Hence, the petition is defective since there is no valid authorisation in favour of the deponent by the Board of OC.

The claim of OC arises out of sale of goods made by IOCL under invoices raised by IOCL. There is no case of guarantee made out in the Petition. The OC has annexed 14 invoices totalling Rs. 2,74,79,972/- Crores, but claims only Rs. 2,32,17,554/- Crores. No clarity is provided on which invoices remain unpaid. Invoices claimed to be outstanding have not been disclosed or identified.

The OC is using the present proceedings for purposes other than insolvency resolution and as a recovery tool.

There are serious disputes regarding the claims of OC, OC and CD are admittedly family companies and there are several family disputes between the promoters, pending before civil court.

That the OC has all along acted as an agent of IOCL. Invoices for supply were raised by IOCL. Claim in the petition is arising out of invoices/supplies by IOCL. Therefore, OC cannot file present proceedings in its own name as per provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

It is submitted that under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by himself on behalf of principal. Therefore, the OC claiming to be an agent of IOCL has no locus to file the present proceedings in its own name.

It is submitted that there is no admission by Shree Ram for the entire claim of the OC.

Further it is submitted that emails from Shree Ram relied upon by OC are misread. The email dated 26.05.2023 offers set-off for Rs. 81,22,896/- lakhs and Rs. 96,41,031/- lakhs from a gross sum of Rs. 2,32,86,934/- Crores . Therefore there was an admission of Rs. 55.2 lakhs.

That the set-off claims of Shree Ram which were coupled with the amount claimed by the OC in such emails, cannot be ignored. The emails cannot be bifurcated or dissected to extract admissions by Shree Ram. The emails, when taken as a whole, would at best amount to admission of Rs.55,23,007, which has been offered by Shree Ram for deposit during the course of hearing, without prejudice.

The emails relied upon by OC show that it was the practice of both parties to enter into group wise accounting, considering the companies of both groups of brothers. Therefore, isolated statements for any single entity cannot be relied upon.

Admittedly, the promoters of the CD & OC are full-blooded brothers and while they were running the companies as joint family companies, the companies were family companies.

Pursuant to the family settlement of 2011, the businesses were separated and divided amongst the brothers and consequently the shareholdings, immovable properties and other assets were also divided. Application for de-merger and amalgamation also stood allowed by the Hon'ble High Court.

After, the family settlement and consequent division of business, the element of joint ownership did not survive.

The purported operational debt' claimed in the CP has accrued through supply of polymer granules by the OC to the CD on dates much later in time and without any condition and/or reference to the family settlement.

Goods sold and delivered to the CD was done by OC as a Del Credere Agent (DCA) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited as will appear from DCA Agreement dated June 22, 2010.

Therefore, for such 'operational debt' the argument of past family history has no bearing.

The clause 5.2.5 of the DCA agreement as well as the acknowledgment of the CD empowers the present OC alone to recover the dues from an allocated customer of IOCL . Such overt clause in the DCA agreement empowers the OC solely to file the present proceedings against the CD.

The Present CP is maintainable as held by the Hon'ble NCLAT in the case of Madras Chemicals & Polymers vs. Vijay Aqua Pipes (P) Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 298/2021 Decided on 28-Aug-23 (2023) SCC OnLine NCLAT 574 that in cases relating to DCA, the appropriate remedy is to file a Section 9 application as the debt accrued by a DCA on behalf of a principal is an operational debt' and not a 'financial debt'.

being fulfilled.

That the subject transaction were completely, in between the two corporate entities, and admission of dues were made in ordinary course of business. It is well settled principle of law that personal affairs of the directors cannot bind the companies.

CD has tried to create cloud upon the complaint, by dragging some family disputes of the two brothers, pending adjudication before separate forum, without touching any of the transaction of the subject proceeding, as we came to know after legal searching.

It is an afterthought attempt of the CD and taken only after issuance of the Statutory notice. There is a clear admission of the CD in its email dated 04/07/2023 (Page-14 of Rejoinder) which is unconditional, clear and unrebutted.

The CD has only riddled its admissions with a bogus condition of adjustments of family settlement after the statutory notice was served on the CD. There are no communications, notices etc. ever from the side of the CD prior to issuance of the statutory notice claiming such adjustments.

application however the authorisation given by him stands valid.

That an authorization which is rightly given by a person continues to operate till it is revoked and/or set-aside.

Mr. Naresh Kumar Agarwal, an Ex- Director who had empowered the. present authorized signatory to file the present application had done it in his capacity of a the then director. After his resignation as a director, he continues to be the majority shareholder of the OC company.

Thus the CP was filed by OC through the person who was authorized by the Board Resolution. When the Board resolution was issued, Mr. Naresh Agarwal was the valid director of OC. His subsequent resignation does not invalidate the board resolution.

The decisions of the board meetings of the OC empowering the present signatory have not been made a subject matter of challenge or contention by the present board.

All earlier board resolutions continue to operate.

Such suit has been filed seeking decree of specific performance from civil court with prayers against Bishnu Kumar Agarwal regarding payment of the compensatory money in lieu of the family settlement, as Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was liable to compensate Naresh Kumar Agarwal to the tune of Rs.50 Crores against the family settlement, his default in such payment is the subject-matter of the suit.

The civil suit, which was filed in 2023 by Naresh Agarwal, is only for enforcement of the family settlement dated December 11, 2011 as amended, on August 27, 2018. Naresh Agarwal was compelled to file the suit because Bishnu Agarwal had acted in breach thereof and had failed to pay the revised amount of Rs.21 crores as mentioned in the amended family settlement dated August 27, 2018.

the amount which is claimed to be in default under the DCA agreement was not paid by CD, which is the subject matter of the present section 9 IBC application, being CP (IB) No.15/KB/2024. Further, CD is not even a party to the said civil suit, and hence, the pendency of the civil suit is not a bar for the maintainability of the present section 9 petition, being C.P.(IB) NO. 15/KB/2024.

The suit does not involve any reliefs so far as it relates to inter-company business transactions relating to sale of goods. The 'operational debt' claimed by the OC in the present CP has not been claimed in the suit by Naresh Kumar Agarwal.

The CD cannot be reasonably allowed to take advantage of a suit filed against its promoter for payment of money by an individual by qualifying it as a 'pre-existing dispute.

The subject matter of suit does not constitute a pre existing dispute for the purpose of present proceedings.

Transaction between the parties started in the year 2021-22 and continued till 2022-2023 as will be evident from the letter of supply and financial ledger of both parties. It's a frivolous attempt to misguide the authority with a transaction almost a decade prior the CD entering into a contract with no relevance during said payment period with CD or any of its activities.

The goods which were supplied to CD are based upon indents raised by CD upon OC/DCA under the DCA Agreement. Further, invoices which were raised by IOCL upon CD refers to OC as the DCA under the same agreement and therefore the terms and conditions of the DCA are fully applicable upon CD. The email issued by IOCL confirming the rate of interest for delayed payment will be 36% with effect from June 16, 2018, will appear from pg-873 of the other CP No.14 of 2024, Vol. V.

Reliance placed by CD on the judgment of Mobilox and also Ramco Cements will not help because in the present case there is categorical admission of CD of the debt and CD is unnecessarily trying to mislead the NCLT by referring to the personal transactions which were entered into between the two brothers being the two promoters of CD and OC.

It is stated that the facts of this of this Delhi High Court judgment are distinguishable because the factual matrix in Delhi High Court judgment does not arise out of a Del Credere Agency (DCA). Clause 5.2.5 at page 41 of CP empowers the DCA/OC to take steps for recovery of money from the customer/purchaser and IOCL has no responsibility in case purchaser/CD fails to pay for any reason. Hence, no further assignment deed is necessary as contemplated under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

vi) Neeraj Jain vs. Cloud Walker Straming Technologies reported in 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 445 for the proposition that Section 9 application must be filed with complete invoices failing which it should be dismissed. It is submitted that paras 47 and 48 of this very judgement supports the case of OC. that it is the nature of transaction which is relevant for the purpose of considering whether invoices are generated during the course of transaction or not, if the demand notice is issued in Form-3 of the IBBI (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, it is not mandatory that the copy of invoice should be attached if there are other documents to prove the existence of operational debt and the amount in default is attached with the application. Further in a case which arises out of a Del Credere Agency agreement, invoices were raised by IOCL/principal upon CD and there is no question of OC raising invoices upon CD and hence invoices could not be annexed with the statutory notice and the Section 9 petition but, however, the complete ledger statements were disclosed giving particulars of the invoices raised by IOCL upon CD.

It is submitted that the facts of this judgment are clearly distinguishable because in this case the family settlement dated 11th December, 2011 and amended, family settlement dated 27th August, 2018 do not refer to or mention or include name of any entity nor has any entity signed both the family settlements. Further, the CD in the present case is also not party to the family settlements The present transaction which is the subject matter of Section 9 is an independent commercial transaction between the two entities and none of the two entities are parties to the family settlements

It is urged that the CD is trying to avoid the admitted payment to OC by unnecessarily referring to the disputes between the personal affairs of two directors namely Naresh Agarwal and Bishnu Agarwal. It is a settled principles of law that personal affairs of directors do not bind the company.

CD has not denied the transaction in question.

CD has also not denied that the OC has paid the dues of I0CL on their behalf

No disputes raised against the claims of the OC, during the contemporaneous period.

When the transactions were in between two corporate entities, a cloud has attempted to be created by saying the dues were paid to OC, in the year 2012, without showing any forwarding letters to that effect. The start of contractual supply did not take effect before 2021 then how dues can be paid in 2012.

Such payment was not even in made in the designated account of the SBI

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd refused to deliver any further goods to the CD after several attempts to get the CD to clear dues of OC close all tie ups and delivery, due to outstanding amount, as shown, in this application.

Desperately, the CD re-coursed to plaint to TS no: 722 of 2023, which has no connection with the claim, under this proceeding. After legal search, it appeared that CD has not claimed that amount against the OC, in that suit.

In reply to Statutory notice, CD has not denied that claim but sought adjustment of some payments made earlier, particularly when the Adjudicating Authority cannot adjudicate set off.

Further claim of the OC has admitted vide Email dated 04.07.2023 Page 14 of the Rejoinder.

Heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the documents on record.

OC was appointed as a Del Credere Agent (DCA) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) via a formal agreement dated June 22, 2010 which is evident from Pg. 33–49 of CP. Under this DCA arrangement, OC acted as the facilitator for the supply of goods (polymer granules) to IOCL's customers and also as a Guarantor, ensuring timely payment to IOCL for such goods, even if the actual customer defaulted.

M/s Shree Ram Electrocast Pvt. Ltd., the CD began purchasing goods from IOCL by tagging OC as their DCA, as per IOCL’s norms. CD raises an indent through OC. IOCL supplies the goods and raises invoices directly on CD, with OC’s name tagged. OC, as DCA, is obligated to make the payment within 48 hours of invoice.

Failure to pay the amount within the time attracts 36% interest p.a., and IOCL may invoke bank guarantee or cash deposits of the DCA.

CD continued to purchase goods from IOCL through OC during FY 2021– 22 to 2022–23. OC maintained a running account, regularly paying IOCL on behalf of CD. However, as of 30 June 2023, CD had defaulted on payments, and Rs. 2,32,86,934/- remained due and unpaid.

Despite repeated reminders from both OC and IOCL, CD failed to clear the dues. Consequently, IOCL marked CD as a defaulter and banned it from lifting materials across India.

All invoices were raised by IOCL, not OC, because of the special nature of the DCA agreement (Pg. 57–70 of CP).It is evident that the CD never disputed any invoice, all invoices were admitted either by conduct or silence, and are part of the statutory notice dated July 3, 2023.

It is evident that as per Clause 5.1.1 and 5.2 of the DCA Agreement (Pg. 40–41 of CP), OC undertakes responsibility for timely payment to IOCL and has exclusive responsibility to recover dues from IOCL’s customers.

Further under Clause 5.2.5, if the customer fails to pay, OC must pay IOCL, and then has the exclusive right to recover from that customer. CD's formal tagging of OC as its DCA via letter dated Sept 23, 2021, Pg. 50–51 of CP demonstrates clear acceptance of these terms.

As CD failed to pay its dues, OC made the final payment to IOCL on July 4, 2023, to avoid steep interest and penalties.

A statutory demand notice under Section 8 of IBC was issued on July 3, 2023, the same is evident from Pg. 129–165 of CP.

The Corporate Debtor’s reply to the statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC (contained at pages 174, 175, 189, and 190 of the Company Petition) contains clear admissions regarding the debt claimed by the OC. These admissions are crucial as they substantiate the existence of debt and default, a prerequisite for admission of a Section 9 application. Reference is made to Annexure ‘M’ of the CP.

Additionally, a key admission is evident in the email dated July 4, 2023, sent from the CD’s official registered email ID, i.e., dheerajagarwal@beekaygroup.co (Pg. 51 of CP). In this communication, CD admits liability of Rs. 2,32,86,934/-, while asserting that if IOCL were to grant a credit of Rs. 81,22,896/-, then the net outstanding payable to OC would be Rs.1,51,64,308/-. Even assuming this reduced amount, the admitted debt exceeds the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore.

With regard to the denial of the authenticity of the email on July 4, 2023, it can be said that all communication related to the transactions between CD, OC, and IOCL was carried out through this very authorized and officially recognized email. The sender, Mr. Dheeraj Agarwal, is a Director and Authorized Signatory of the CD. Thus, this attempted denial is a deliberate misrepresentation and a fraud upon the Tribunal.

While acknowledging that a sum above the threshold is payable, the CD seeks to set off Rs. 4.68 crore, allegedly arising from a family settlement agreement dated August 27, 2018. This claim relates to a completely separate issue and predates any transaction between CD and OC under the DCA arrangement. This is a clear attempt to introduce extraneous contractual disputes unrelated to the present operational debt.

CD seeks to set off Rs. 4.68 crore based on a family settlement, which the OC disputes, emphasizing that no obligations existed between CD and OC during the family settlement period.

It is established by law and reiterated in judgments Swiss Ribbons (supra), Vishal Doshi (supra), AP Coated Drums (supra) that set-off or counterclaims are outside the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC.

At this juncture we would refer to the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Madras Chemicals & Polymers vs Vijay Aqua Pipes Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 298/2021 reported in (2023) SCC OnLine NCLAT 574 which held as follow:

Hence, the debt arising from DCA agreements are operational debts and maintainable under Section 9 of the IBC.

The pending civil suit involving family settlement enforcement between promoters does not constitute a pre-existing dispute affecting the present operational debt claim between the two companies.

CD is not a party to the family settlement suits, and the commercial transactions underlying the claim occurred years after the family settlement.

The interest rate of 36% on delayed payments is supported by IOCL’s confirmation and applicable under the DCA agreement terms. Invoices raised by IOCL as principal support the operational debt claim, and CD’s challenge on this ground is rejected.

In an identical matter concerning the same Del Credere Agent, we have already passes the following order:

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present C.P (IB) NO. 15/KB/2024 stands admitted. The Operational Creditor is directed to furnish the Applicant of I.A (IB) NO. 370/KB/2025 a copy of the Civil suit no. 127 of 2020 titled as Mr.Naresh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. V. Bishnu Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Hence, the I.A (IB) NO. 370/KB/2025 stands disposed of.

The C.P. (IB) NO. 15/KB/2024 filed under Section 9 of I&B Code stands ALLOWED, and accordingly, we order the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor by the following Orders:

a. The Application filed by Kushal Polysacks Pvt. Ltd.(Operational Creditor), under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is hereby, admitted for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of Shree Ram Electrocast (Jharkhand) Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor).

b. There shall be a moratorium under section 14 of the IBC.

c. The moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the CIRP or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the IBC or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under section 33 of the IBC, as the case may be.

d. Public announcement of the CIRP shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of the Code read with regulation 6 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

e. Mr. Soumitra Lahiri, Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00734/2017-2018/11232, Phone no. 8420969857, email: slahiri0207@gmail.com, is hereby appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor to carry out the functions as per the Code subject to submission of a valid Authorisation of Assignment in terms of regulation 7A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016. The fee payable to IRP or the RP, as the case may be, shall be compliant with such Regulations, Circulars and Directions as may be issued by the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The IRP shall carry out his functions as contemplated by sections 15, 17, 18,19, 20 and 21 of the Code.

f. During the CIRP period, the management of the Corporate Debtor 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 Corporate Debtor 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.

g. The Interim Resolution Professional is expected to take full charge of the Corporate Debtor, its assets and its documents without any delay whatsoever. He is also free to take police assistance in this regard, and this Court hereby directs the concerned Police Authorities to render all assistance as may be required by the Interim Resolution Professional in this regard.

h. The IRP/RP shall submit to this Adjudicating Authority periodical report with regard to the progress of the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

j. In terms of section 9(5)(a) of the Code, Court Officer of this Court is hereby directed to communicate this Order to the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the IRP by Speed Post, email and WhatsApp immediately, and in any case, not later than two days from the date of this Order.

k. Additionally, the Operational Creditor shall serve a copy of this Order on the IRP and on the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, by all available means for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor. The said Registrar of Companies shall send a compliance report in this regard to the Registry of this Court within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

The C.P. (IB) No. 15/KB/2024 to come up on 28.10.2025 for filing the periodical report.

A certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisites.