AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Oral: JUSTICE RAMALIMGUM SUDHAKAR (Hon'ble President)
IA-5023/2021
This is an application filed by Resolution Professional for seeking the following relief:-
a)"Allow the present application;
b)To order for approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016;
c)To order that Resolution Plan approved by the Hon'ble Tribunal shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, and creditors including the Central Government, any State Government including but not limiting to RIICO or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan;
d)Pass such order/orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
IA-3364/2020
This is an application filed by Employees Provident Fund Organisation [Through its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (South)] for seeking following reliefs: -
“a. Direct the Resolution Professional to accept and pay the claims of the applicant herein of ₹1,62,19,53,945/- (₹40,57,14,551/- under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 & Tentative dues of ₹48,35,40,132/- under Section 14B & ₹73,26,99,262 under Section 7Q) as assessed vide the Orders passed under Section 7A, 14B and 7Q of EPF & MP Act, 1952.
b. Pass any or such other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
IA-5023/2021 is an application filed by Resolution Professional under Section 30(6) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for approval of the Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. The Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. Hytro Power Corporation Ltd. has submitted the Resolution Plan based on the 24th CoC meeting dated 06.09.2021.
The CIRP proceedings under Section 9 of IBC were initiated against the CD by Grid Infratech Power Corporation (Operational Creditor) in respect of debt and default. The admission order was passed on 12.06.2019 and an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, thereafter the present RP is now holding the position. A public announcement was made on 15.06.2019 with regard to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) seeking claims from Financial/Operational Creditors, workers and employees, etc. till 27.06.2021. The CoC was constituted on 05.07.2019 with seven members. Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) also made a claim. As many as 24 COC meetings were conducted, it is not in dispute that the claims of EPFO were also deliberated in the CoC meeting. It is also relevant to point out that before the Resolution Plan was approved, an order dated 09.09.2020 was passed by this Bench in IA-3364/2020 which reads as under:-
“IA-3364/2020
“It is an application field by EPFO seeking directions against the respondent to accept the claim of ₹162,19,53,945.
As against this, the RP Counsel submits that the Corporate Debtor does not have funds to pay to EPFO and the financial creditors’ claim itself is of more than ₹ 800 Crores. Now the plan having value of ₹ 10 Crores has only come for approval, the corporate debtor will not be in a position to pay any money towards dues payable to EPFO.
At first it is pertinent to mention that EPF dues will not be part of the liquidation estate as stated under Section 36(4) of the Code, therefore no matter whether money lying with the corporate debtor or not, whatever that is lying with the Corporate Debtor shall be first paid towards EPF dues, after deduction of those dues, if any value is left with the Corporate Debtor, it will become the liquidation estate.
Therefore the liquidator cannot say that since the financial creditor claim is ₹800 Crores, he will not be in a position to pay up EPF dues.
In the backdrop of this legal proposition stated in Sec. 36(4) of the Code, RP is hereby directed to maintain status quo until further orders.”
Expression of Interest (“EoI”) in Form ‘G’ was issued and first published on 16.11.2019 for submission of the Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor. The required procedure was followed. The last date of submission of EoI was 08.01.2020. Three EoIs were received and two of the prospective Resolution Applicants survived. The evaluation matrix was taken up by the CoC. When the proposals were under consideration, an order has been passed on 10.11.2020 by this Tribunal which reads as under:-
“The Resolution Professional is at liberty to declare the result of the voting undertaken over by the Resolution Plan.”
Based on order dated 10.11.2020, the plans were considered and rejected by the CoC. Further, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the RP made the following submissions which are detailed as under:-
The plans were discussed from the 15th CoC meeting, held on 30.07.2020 till the 17th CoC meeting, and the CoC asked the Prospective Resolution Applicants to submit better offers. Further, in the 17th CoC meeting itself held on 26.08.2020, the RP apprised the CoC that M/s. Delhi Orthopedic Centre and Nursing Home Private Limited had withdrawn their Plan, and the CoC approved M/s. Kusumesh Steel Private Limited to be filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal as per the Code, however, by the 18th CoC meeting, the Plan submitted by M/s. Kusumesh Steel Private Limited was disapproved as only 47.69% voting share by the CoC members was received in favour of Resolution Plan against the requisite voting share of 66%, after which a liquidation application was to be moved by the Resolution Professional.
On JLM held on 16.01.2021, the RP further apprised the CoC members that on 08.01.2021, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, on behalf of Candid Resources Limited, upon intimation sent via mail dated 06.01.2021 sent an offer/proposal regarding take-over of the Corporate Debtor.
Thereafter, another Form ‘G’ for Expressions of Interest (“EoI”) from potential resolution applicants were issued on 03.03.2021 for submission of resolution plans for the Corporate Debtor with the last date as 22.04.2021. This was also published in Jan Satta (Hindi) (Delhi edition) Newspapers and Financial Express (English) Newspapers. The notice was also published on the website of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India [hereinafter referred to as “IBBI”].
Further, during the JLM held on 22.03.2021, the RP apprised the members that the Form G was published in the newspaper on 03.03.2021, covering Bhiwadi, with the timeline ending on 17.03.2021 and based on the same the RP received 5 EOI’s (including Mr. Dinesh Agarwal).
Subsequently, after due deliberations, the Resolution Professional issued the final request for resolution plan (invitation for submission of resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor) dated 24.03.2021.
Thereafter, upon the JLM held on 24.05.2021, the RP noticed that some of the lenders were attending the JLM for the first time, so the RP gave brief background/chain of events which led to the meeting held on 24.05.2021. The RP delineated a detailed chart comparing the resolution plans submitted by the previous PRAs and the current two PRA’s w.r.t. cash flow statement mentioned in the Resolution Plan, meeting the full CIRP cost up to the date of order, enhancing Financial Creditors share in trade receivables and full share of proceeds in avoidance transactions and reduction of the terms of the Plan. Subsequently, both the PRAs were requested to submit their revised version of the Resolution Plan as per the discussions with the CoC members.
Thereafter, on 13.07.2021, pursuant to the agenda/notice sent to the CoC by the RP, the RP convened the 20th CoC meeting chairing with the required quorum. The Applicant further deliberated the important dates of the CIRP, updated minutes of 19th CoC meeting and confirmed them and updated the list of claims received by the RP. It was also apprised that the Resolution Plan of M/s. Kusumesh Steel Private Limited which was put to vote in 18th CoC meeting dated 31.08.2020 was disapproved as only 47.69% voting share by the CoC members was received in favour of Resolution Plan against the requisite voting share of 66%. This CoC was held in view of the principle approval given by the Principal Bench, which was subsequently upheld by the order of 15 July 2021 giving exclusion and extension.
Further, during the course of the 20th CoC meeting held on 13.07.2021 the RP apprised the CoC that an email along with an offer/proposal was received from one Mr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal regarding the takeover of Corporate Debtor. For this purpose, the CoC apprised the RP that the Plan received is yet again below the liquidation value and therefore, the CoC was of the view that they would rather proceed with the liquidation plan rather than accepting a lower value, to which the new PRA agreed to revise the plan and increase the value being offered for the Corporate Debtor.
Thereafter, in pursuance to the 23rd CoC meeting the members of the Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. CANDID RESOURCES LIMITED IN CONSORTIUM with INDORIENT FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED (known as Successful Resolution Applicant). It is pertinent to note that the Plan of M/s. Candid RESOURCES LIMITED IN CONSORTIUM WITH INDORIENT FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED was approved by 100% of the voting shares.
As a consequence, the Resolution Plan along with the copy of the demand draft dated 15.03.2021 (hereinafter “approved resolution plan”) submitted by M/s. CANDID RESOURCES LIMITED in CONSORTIUM with INDORIENT FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED (SRA) was approved by the CoC. A copy of the Resolution Plan along with the copy of the demand draft dated 15.03.2021 is annexed to the IA and marked as ANNEXURE-1.
Subsequently, the SRA submitted the signed and accepted Letter of Intent dated 15.09.2021 along with the performance security of INR 5 crores with the Resolution Professional, thereby indicating their acceptance of the decision of the CoC and their desire to carry out the resolution plan. A copy of the accepted Letter of intent dated 15.09.2021 is annexed to the I.A. and marked as ANNEXURE-2.
Thus, the Successful Resolution Applicant in the present matter is M/s. CANDID RESOURCES LIMITED, having CIN: U74140DL2005PLC142848 incorporated on 23.11.2005 in CONSORTIUM with INDORIENT FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED having CIN:U67190DL1993PLC052085 incorporated on 09.02.1993.
When the Resolution Plan application was moved EPFO through its counsel i.e. Mr. Siddharth opposed the Resolution Plan primarily on the plea that it does not satisfy the requirement of Section 30(2)(e) of the Code. In support of his plea, he referred to certain facts which are relevant to be considered. The CD is an Engineering, Procurement and Construction Company (EPC). It had a large number of employees on its wage roll. The periodic inspections of the CD had reported compliance of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 till 1997. In February 2014, an enquiry was conducted based on a complaint by an employee after issuing a show cause notice to the CD under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. Since he failed to show adequate cause to the notice, an enquiry was commenced on 28.02.2014 for the period from 1993 to 2014. The enquiry found substantial non-compliance for the period from 1997 to 2013. In the assessment proceedings, the Authority held that the CD had contributed a sum of ₹6,27,22,023/- only as against ₹48,35,40,057/-which was due under Section 6 of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. A sum of ₹42,08,18,034/- remained unpaid as per the assessment. This amount determined and assessed by the competent authority would also suffer interest under Section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 together with the damages as provided under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. Accordingly, the assessment order was passed against the CD on 12.11.2015.
On 28.01.2016, the CD filed an appeal to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (then known as EPF Appellate Tribunal) under Section 7(I) of the Act. The Tribunal admitted the appeal subject to a pre-deposit of 50% of the assessed amount vide section 7(O) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. The CD failed to make the pre-deposit. Hence, the appeal was dismissed for default as provided under Section 7(O) of EPF & MP Act, 1952 on 30.03.2016. On dismissal of the appeal for non-compliances of the above, it is stated that the recoveries were initiated between 2016-2019. A sum of ₹1,51,03,483/- was recovered by garnishee orders against the CD's bankers account and professional fees due from the CD's clients. The attachment of the CD's properties did not yield any result to the EPF Department as it was operating out of leased properties. Despite the recoveries of the above, a sum of ₹40,57,14,551/- remained to be recovered. This would suffer interest under section 7(Q) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 at the minimum statutory rate of 12% p.a. and it is calculated as a sum of ₹73,26,99,262/- upto 06.08.2019. The damages were calculated under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 at 25% p.a. prescribed under paragraph 32B of the EPF scheme and that amounted to ₹48,35,40,132/- up to 06.08.2019. On the basis of the above proceedings a claim of ₹162,19,53,945/- approximately was made to the RP on 09.08.2019. It is not disputed that this claim was admitted by the RP. On the demand made by EPFO based on the assessment proceedings as above, it will also be pertinent to point out that the then management of the CD had filed W.P. (C.) 9095 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court challenging the assessment order and the orders of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which was dismissed on 20.10.2016.
The then management of the CD filed an LPA No. 566 of 2017 on 23.08.2017 which was dismissed on 28.08.2017. For the record, it is to be noticed that the plea of the CD is that the appeal before the Tribunal should have been heard without the requirement of pre-deposit as required under Section 7(O) of the EPF & MP Act, as the EPFO had attached its properties. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court, however, declined to give any relief except giving liberty to CD to raise all the issues before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. In terms of the liberty granted by the Division Bench by order dated 28.08.2017, the CD moved an application dated 05.10.2017 for exemption from pre-deposit, this application was dismissed for default on 05.04.2018. The CD sought restoration of this application which was also dismissed on 28.03.2019. The then management of the CD then filed W.P. (C.) 5399/2019 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the order of the Tribunal dated 28.03.2019. In the mean while the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process commenced and in the High Court proceedings, the RP was impleaded on 05.11.2019. However, as noticed earlier on 09.08.2019 before the last proceedings at the Hon'ble Delhi High Court would conclude, the EPFO filed a claim for ₹162,19,53,945/- in the present CP. No. (IB)-1064(PB)/2018. The EPFO had filed an application i.e. IA-3364/2020, an order of status quo was passed on 09.09.2020 (supra). In the meanwhile, it is stated by Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel and Mr. Apoorva Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the RP that on 10.11.2020, the status quo orders were modified and RP was permitted to declare the result of the voting undertaken over by the Resolution Plan and therefore the plan was voted upon and it is before us. For the matter of record, the Resolution Professional withdrew the W.P. (C.) 5399/2019 on 30.05.2022. This was the last litigation pending against the EPF Department at the instance of the CD which was inherited by the RP. On 23.03.2022, the EPFO has objected to the Resolution Plan which does not recognize the full claim of the EPFO and also pursued the same before this Tribunal in the Resolution Plan application i.e. IA-5023/2021 as well as EPFO application i.e. IA-3364/2020. Ld. Counsel for the RP stated that the liquidation value of the CD is approximately ₹24.31 Crores and the fair value is ₹28.62 Crores. In the present plan as CP. No. (IB)-1064(PB)/2018 against claims of Operational Creditors including EPFO, the admitted sum is ₹2,27,46,55,688.60/- and for the staff and Workmen is ₹1,49,79,080.11/-. In respect of the Operational Creditors (including EPFO) and Workmen/Employees what is provided in a plan is a sum of ₹70 Lacs. Aggrieved by this allocation to the EPFO under the head mentioned above, the objection is raised by the EPFO to reject the Resolution Plan passed by the CoC and the entire claim of the Respondent No. 6 namely EPFO must be paid following the due process of the Code. To that effect, the objection has been filed to the Resolution Plan on 23.03.2022.
Ld. Counsel for the EPFO relies upon the recent decision of Hon'ble NCLAT dated 21.10.2022 in the case of Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association v. Ashish Chhawchharia, Resolution Professional of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 752 of 2021).
The stand of the RP is based on the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT, Chennai order dated 23.09.2022 in the case of Mr. B. Parameshwara Udpa, Resolution Professional v. Assistant PF Commissioner & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 231 of 2021) reads as under:-
"Therefore, taking benefit of the ratio of above discussions in 'Godiwala Case', this 'Tribunal' answers the aforesaid issue in the negative. Therefore, the 'Resolution Professional' is not duty bound to make adequate provisions for 'Provident Fund' when the 'Corporate Debtor' did not have separate 'Provident Fund Account'. It is again reiterated that the 'Resolution Professional' has to deal with the 'Claims', if any, on this 'account', in terms of Section 53 of the I & B Code 2016, if warranted, and provided as per 'Law'.
Ld. Counsel for the RP further states that while in the case of Jet Aircraft (supra) there is no provision made for EPFO dues whereas in the present case a sum of ₹70 lacs is provided for Operational Creditor, EPFO and Workmen/Employees dues. We refer to Hon'ble NCLAT's decision dated 21.10.2022 in the case of Jet Aircraft (supra). This decision, referring to para 12, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 987 of 2022 and in the light of the factual background therein, the Hon'ble NCLAT frames the questions at page 39, point II & III and para 67, 68 & 69 at page 77 of the Jet Aircraft (supra) reads as under:-
"II. Whether the workmen and employees are entitled to receive the payment of provident fund, gratuity and other retirement benefits in full since they are not part of the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(b)(iii) of the Code?
III. Whether the workmen and employees are entitled to receive their dues from the Corporate Debtor as per the provisions of the Code i.e. the minimum liquidation value envisaged under Section 30(2)(b) by referring to the waterfall mechanism provided under Section 53(1) of the Code?"
67.Thus, from the above proposition it is clear that share of workmen dues have to be kept out of liquidation process and same shall have to be paid to the employees and workmen out of such provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund, if any, available. Thus, it is clear that if any provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund is available with the Corporate Debtor, the share of employees and workmen has to be paid from the said fund which has to be kept out of the liquidation process. Thus, if the claim of workmen/employees regarding payment of provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund can be satisfied from the fund maintained by the Corporate Debtor than that has to be kept out of the liquidation and cannot be utilized for distribution amongst other stakeholders.
68.The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied by learned counsel for the Respondent also in Para 53 clearly held that Section 53(1) of the Code shall not be applicable to such sums, which are to be treated outside the liquidation process and liquidation estate assets under the Code. Direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 54(i) was with regard to wages and salary of the workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP period and under direction (ii) at Para 54, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed in reference to Section 36(4) of the Code that provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund are kept out of the liquidation estate assets and the share of the workmen dues shall be kept outside the liquidation process. Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied on words "if any, available" occurring in direction (ii). The above words cannot be read to mean that the workmen and employees are not entitled for provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund if not available with the Liquidator.
69.The present is a case where resolution plan has been approved; present is not a case of liquidation. Under the provisions of 1952 Act, the Corporate Debtor is statutorily obliged to deposit the provident fund of the workmen and employees with the EPFO. It has been clearly stated in the Additional Affidavit of the Resolution Professional dated 25.07.2022 that no amount towards provident fund of the workmen and employees were deposited after February, 2019. Insolvency commencement date being 20.06.2019, the Corporate Debtor was obliged to deposit the contribution towards provident fund with EPFO. The claim of provident fund till the insolvency commencement date, of the workmen and employees was to be accepted and Successful Resolution Applicant was liable to make payment of provident fund till the date of initiation of CIRP and statutory obligation of the Corporate Debtor was liable to be discharged by the Successful Resolution Applicant. From the Affidavit of Resolution Professional it is clear that Resolution Professional in the claim which has been admitted of the workmen for 24 months, the provident fund and gratuity amount was also included. The workmen have received payments with regard to provident fund and gratuity in part under the Resolution Plan subject to the liquidation value of the workmen. We, thus, are satisfied that workmen are entitled for issuing appropriate direction to Successful Resolution Applicant to make payment of the workmen of the provident fund and gratuity dues upto the date of insolvency commencement date less the amount already received under the Resolution Plan towards provident fund and gratuity. The Corporate Debtor having not deposited the statutory dues with the EPFO, the said statutory liability has to be discharged by the Successful Resolution Applicant.”
In the present case, we find that the liability of the CD has already been crystallized by passing appropriate orders under the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, as noticed above which is identical to the facts in the case of Jet Aircraft (supra). Therefore, in the present case, the Resolution Plan necessarily has to provide for payment of the EPFO dues in full and cannot be partial as noticed above. The Successful Resolution Applicant has not provided for the entire dues of EPFO and therefore, it is in violation of Section 30(2)(e) of the Act.
A contention was raised by Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the RP that the provision for payment of dues will apply only if there is any fund available. This contention appears to be factually incorrect because even before the CD went into CIRP proceedings, there was recovery initiated by the EPFO and payments have already been made. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT Chennai Bench will not apply to the facts of the present case.
Having held that the Resolution Plan is in violation of Section 30(2) of the Code, we have no other option except to fall back on Section 33(1)(b) which reads as follows:-
“33.(1) Where the Adjudicating Authority, —
(b)rejects the resolution plan under section 31 for the non-compliance of the requirements specified therein, it shall—
(i)pass an order requiring the corporate debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in this Chapter;
(ii)issue a public announcement stating that the corporate debtor is in liquidation; and
(iii)require such order to be sent to the authority with which the corporate debtor is registered.”
As a result, the Resolution Plan application i.e. IA-5023/2021 stands rejected. IA-3364/2020, filed by EPFO stands disposed of with a direction to the EPFO to file a claim before the Liquidator in the liquidation process as ordered herein.
Accordingly, we order CD to be liquidated in terms of Section 33(1) of the Code and pass the following order:-
The Order of Moratorium passed under Section 14 of the IBC shall cease to have its effect and a fresh Moratorium under Section 33(5) of the IBC shall commence; ii. The Resolution Professional, Mr. Deepak Maini (IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00676/20172018/11149) is appointed as liquidator to carry on the process of liquidation in terms of section 34(1) of the Code.
The Liquidator shall initiate liquidation process as envisaged under Chapter-III of the Code and the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. He is to be strictly informed that he should not delay the process any further. He will maintain timelines.
Public Notice shall be issued in the same newspapers in which advertisements were issued earlier i.e., in Financial Express (English) and Jansatta (Hindi), Delhi edition and Website/Portal maintained by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India stating that the Corporate Debtor is in liquidation.
All the powers of the Board of Directors, and of key managerial persons, shall cease to exist in accordance with section 34(2) of the Code. All these powers shall henceforth vest in the Liquidator.
The personnel of the Corporate Debtor are directed to extend all assistance and full co-operation to the Liquidator as required by him in managing the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor. They will do so without demur and promptly.
On initiation of the liquidation process but subject to section 52 of the Code, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the Corporate Debtor save and except the liberty to the liquidator to institute suit or other legal proceeding on behalf of the Corporate Debtor with prior approval of this Adjudicating Authority, as provided in section 33(5) of the Code read with its proviso.
In accordance with section 33(7) of the Code, this liquidation order shall be deemed to be a notice of discharge to the officers, employees and workmen of the Corporate Debtor except to the extent of the business of the Corporate Debtor to be continued during the liquidation process by the Liquidator.
The Liquidator shall follow up and continue to investigate the financial affairs of the Corporate Debtor in accordance with provisions of Section 35(1) of the Code and seek and get assistance from all persons connected with Company in liquidation.
The liquidator shall also follow up the pending applications for their disposal during the process of liquidation including initiation of steps for recovery of dues of the Corporate Debtor as per law in a time-bound manner.
The Liquidator shall submit Preliminary Report to the Adjudicating Authority within seventy-five days from the liquidation commencement date as per Regulation 13 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. He shall refrain from filing frivolous, time consuming applications. All steps to speed up the liquidation proceedings to be taken by the Liquidator. If there is any deliberate delay in action and if there is inaction causing loss of value of Liquidation Estate and unnecessary expenditure, he will be subject to appropriate action as per law including removal.
In terms of section 33(1)(b)(iii), the Liquidator shall file a copy of this Order with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana i.e. within whose jurisdiction the Corporate Debtor is registered. Additionally, the Registry shall also forward a copy of this Order to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.
The Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties and their Ld. Counsel for information and for taking necessary steps.
Certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.