M/s. Skylark Ithaca Buyers Welfare Association & Ors. vs M/s. Skylark Mansions Private Limited & Ors.

Per: Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (Judicial)

C.P.(IB)No.389/BB/2019 is filed by M/s. Skylark Ithaca Buyers Welfare Association Consisting of 255 Homebuyers (Petitioners/Financial Creditors) U/s. 7 of IBC, 2016 R/w Rule 4 of I&B (AAA) Rules, 2016, by inter-alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s. Skylark Mansions Private Limited (Respondents/Corporate Debtors) on the ground that it has committed default for an amount of Rs.220,90,27,614/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Twenty Crores Ninety Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fourteen only) which consists of principal amount and interest @ 18% p.a., in respect of all the Homebuyers.

Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition, which are relevant to the issue in question, as follows:

M/s. Skylark Ithaca Buyers Welfare Association Consisting of 255 Homebuyers (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners/Financial Creditors) are Home Buyers, who have entered into Agreements of Sale and Constructions, on various dates for purchase of Apartments of varying sizes, in the residential Apartment Complex proposed by Skylark Mansions Private Limited. The said Skylark Mansions Private Limited entered into Three (3) Joint Development Agreements with the Landowners and One (1) Supplemental Agreement with the Landowners of the composite property, on which the proposed residential apartment complex was being constructed. The said Landowners had also executed Powers of Attorney in favour of Skylark Mansions Private Limited to sell undivided right in the composite property proportionate to the built-up area to prospective purchasers such as the Financial Creditor/Member of the Association/Home Buyers. The said Skylark Mansions Private Limited had also obtained sanction plan from the Bangalore Development Authority in its name for the proposed development.

M/s. Skylark Mansions Private Limited in association with M/s. ITHACA Estates Private Limited (herein after referred to as Respondents/Corporate Debtors), is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Skylark Mansions Private Limited, were incorporated on 31.10.1994 and 23.01.2013, bearing CIN: U7010KA1994PTC016487 and U45205KA2013PTC067632. Its Authorised Share Capital of Rs.19,00,00,000/- and Paid-up Capital of Rs.10,26,80,000/- and Authorized Share Capital of ITHACA Company is Rs.5,00,000/- and Paid-up Capital of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Directors in M/s. ITHACA Estates Private Limited are the same Directors in M/s. Skylark Mansions Private Limited. The Financial Creditor/Members of the Association/Home Buyers are given to understand that the said ITHACA Estates Private Limited is a Company incorporated and registered only to execute the development for and on behalf of Skylark Mansions Private Limited under the control and directions of Skylark Mansions Private Limited. There appears to be an assignment of Development Rights by Skylark Mansions Private Limited, but the Financial Creditor/Members of the Association/Home Buyers have not been made available with any such documents.

It is stated that the Respondents/Corporate Debtors, despite having received amounts through ITHACA Estates Private Limited, in terms of the Agreements, have failed to complete the project and register the Apartments, in the name of the Apartment Buyers. Therefore, the Home Buyers have come together and formed a Registered Association, known as “Skylark Ithaca Buyers Welfare Association” which is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 consisting of 256 Members, with other Home buyers in the process of joining the Association. The Association has filed the present proceedings as a Financial Creditor, on behalf of some of its Members, who are Petitioners herein. The Financial Creditors are represented by its Joint Secretary, Mr. Sachin Gangadharswamy. The Resolution passed by the Association authorizing its Secretary and such others to institute proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.

It is stated that the Corporate Debtor had held out to the Financial Creditors that it had entered into Joint Development Agreements (JDA’s) with various landowners in respect of Sy. Nos. 24/4, 24/5, 24/6 of Kodigehalli Village and Sy. Nos. 28, 29, 30/1, 32/1 of Kurudu Sonnenahalli Village, K.R. Puram, Bangalore admeasuring approximately 20 Acres along with Certain Supplemental Agreements (SA's) and that under the said JDA's, SA's, etc., it was agreed that the Corporate Debtor would be entitled to develop the said property into a multi-storeyed Residential Apartment Building and accordingly had secured a Development Plan, sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority on 16.11.2013 and that the Corporate Debtor had also obtained a Building Construction Plan vide LP No.68/2013-14 dated 24.02.2014 for construction of Five (5) buildings. The details of which are mentioned herein below:

It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor had further held out to the Financial Creditors that it has assigned its Development Rights in favour of ITHACA Estates Private Limited (IEPL), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor and the Directors of the said subsidiary are also the Directors of the Corporate Debtor. IEPL was entrusted by the Corporate Debtor to put-up construction of the residential apartment complex and undertake the Development Activity for and on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, IEPL is only a contractor executing the project. The Corporate Debtor had proposed 1498 flats, with 11 Towers in Phase I, and 8 Towers in Phase II. Based on the aforesaid joint representations and warrantees of the Corporate Debtor and IEPL had contracted to purchase Apartments of varying sizes. As per the terms of the Construction Contract, under the instructions, knowledge and consent of the Corporate Debtor, the Financial Creditors/Home Buyers/Members of the Association had issued the payments under the Agreements to IEPL which was duly acknowledged by IEPL. And the Sale Agreements and Construction Agreements stipulate the manner in which payments would be made by the Financial Creditors. The Agreement of Sale is identical for all Financial Creditors. Though the Construction Agreements are similar, there are minor variations with regard to the date on which possession of the Apartment, would be handed over to the respective Financial Creditors. In the said Construction Agreements the date on which possession would be delivered are 31.03.2017, 30.09.2017, 30.06.2018, 31.12.2018, etc.

It is submitted that in pursuant to the execution of their respective agreements, over 98% of the Home Buyers had obtained Home loans from various Banks and Financial Institutions and less than 2% of Financial Creditors have self-financed their respective flats. Further, the Corporate Debtor through its IEPL had entered into Tripartite Agreements with the Financial Creditors and their respective Banks/Financial Institutes to enable the Financial Creditors avail Home Loans, thereby ensuring that all amounts under the aforesaid Agreements were received by IEPL for and on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. As on date, the Financial Creditors have paid over 90% of the consideration/cost to the Corporate Debtor through IEPL, though the extent of construction was/is not commensurate with the payments made. These payments had to be made by the Financial Creditors, to avoid delayed payment interest, penalty and any whimsical action at the Corporate Debtors end. The Financial Creditors have also been servicing the loans/facility availed from their bankers by regularly paying the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI's), in order to avoid any action from the Bank and to avoid their credit worthiness being affected.

It is submitted that some of them have entered into Agreements with IEPL, under which they were made to pay an additional sum of over Rs.400 per square foot and IEPL having received the additional consideration had agreed to pay the pre-EMI value/interest directly to the banks, on behalf of the Financial Creditors. This obligation under the Agreement was discharged by IEPL, only for the first few months and thereafter, for over two (2) years, the said IEPL has not discharged its obligation, thereby burdening the Financial Creditors with additional financial outflow, in order to service the loan and to avoid action from the Banks.

It is further submitted that some of them had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the IEPL, termed as Exit Option. Under the said MoU, IEPL had offered to buy back the flats, from the Financial Creditors. Despite the Financial Creditors having issued notices, as contemplated under the terms of the MoU, to IEPL, neither IEPL nor the Corporate Debtor have come forward to buy back the said apartments in accordance with the Scheme propounded by them. This conduct of IEPL and the Corporate Debtor has forced the Financial Creditors to continue discharging their obligations to their respective Banks in respect of the facility availed by them. And some of them, who had agreements of Sale and Construction in respect of flats, that were to be constructed and delivered in Phase-II of the proposed scheme/constructions, were given the choice to opt from Phase-II to Phase-I, and in this regard were made to enter into fresh agreements.

It is alleged that as on date, Construction of Building Nos. 4 and 5 have not even been commenced, except for earthwork excavation for foundation. There has been no construction in any manner whatsoever, despite the Corporate Debtor through IEPL having received substantial portion of the consideration. In pursuance to various correspondences to the Corporate Debtor, on the aspect of delay in execution of the project and the status of the Construction, the Corporate Debtor and IEPL have addressed emails to the Financial Creditors regretting that there has been delay in handing over the Apartments, as per the agreed time schedule and undertaking that they would complete handing over of Phase-I of the Project by October 2018. Though under the construction agreement, Apartments were to be delivered by 31st March 2017, the said communication did not speak about Clause 6.4 of the Construction Agreement which entitled Financial Creditors to receive damages in a sum of Rs.4/- per square feet, per month, for the delayed period in handing over possession of the Apartments duly completed in all respects along with the proposed amenities.

It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor and IEPL, had called all Financial Creditors for a meetings dated 13.09.2018 and 22.09.2018. In the said meeting, it was agreed by the Chairman and Managing Director Mr. Saleem Sheriff of the Corporate Debtor and IEPL that the construction which was dormant would resume by October 2018 and that the Apartments in the respective Towers would be handed over to the Financial Creditors, between March, 2019 and June, 2019. However, there has been no progress with the construction.

The details of the Financial Creditors, the Apartment Nos. they have contracted for, Agreement date, Amount paid, etc., are mentioned herein below:

It is submitted that the total Amount towards Principal is Rs.127,44,38,369/- and the amount towards interest is Rs.82,41,14,731/-. Further the Corporate Debtor and IEPL is due to the Financial Creditors a sum of Rs.1,04,93,508/-, towards the Pre-EMI interest that was agreed to be serviced by the Corporate Debtor and IEPL on receipt of additional consideration, which was paid by the Financial Creditors. The Financial Creditors are also entitled to such amounts that they have been paying the banks towards EMI, without the benefit of the Apartment. They reserve the right to claim Interest on the EMI's paid. They are also entitled to Rs.4 per sft, per month for each months delay in handing over the Apartment. The Financial Creditors are also entitled to the amounts paid towards rent in a sum of Rs.3,47,45,093/- from the date they have been deprived possession of the Apartment. Some of the Financial Creditors have approached RERA, and the Hon'ble Court has passed orders, after hearing the Corporate Debtors and IEPL, holding that the Corporate Debtor and IEPL are in default and directing payment of compensation. Despite the same and the request of the Financial Creditor to comply with the orders of the RERA, the Corporate Debtor and IEPL are unable to comply with the same.

It is submitted that they have issued a notice dated 22.07.2019, in the capacity of Financial Creditors, through their Registered Association, demanding repayment of the aforesaid amounts. The Corporate Debtor and IEPL and the commons Directors have issued a vague, untenable and frivolous reply dated 08.08.2019, almost reneging on their commitments and obligations under the Agreements and not complying with the demand for making payment of the amounts paid by the Financial Creditors. All these amounts have been paid by them as early as 2014 – 2015, neither has the Amount earned its time value of money, nor has the same earned interest. The Corporate Debtor and IEPL have neither shown sufficient progress in the construction of the proposed Buildings nor have they handed over possession of the Apartments in terms of their commitments under the respective agreements. The list of other Financial Creditors/ Home buyers in the very same project, who have approached the RERA and case are pending in RERA and Cases which are sent to the Deputy Commissioner for enforcement, has been published on the RERA, website.

It is stated that the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor, has been filed till the Financial Year 2017-18 and IEPL has filed for the Financial Years 2016-17, the earlier balance sheets would disclose that the, assets of the Corporate Debtor and IEPL is insufficient to discharge its current liabilities. The Corporate Debtor and IEPL, have defaulted repayment of loans, to banks and financial institutions. Further the Corporate Debtor and IEPL have not complied with various statutory requirements by completing the necessary compliances. Further, several Creditors of the Corporate Debtor and IEPL have not been paid and statutory payments have also not been made. Therefore, continuance of the said Corporate Debtor and IEPL under the present Chairman and Managing Director, pose a great threat to Banks, Creditors, Investors, Home Buyers and the public at large and therefore, it would be just and necessary to initiate the process of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of the Code, 2016.

It is relevant to point out that another Company Petition bearing C.P.(IB)No.314/BB/2019 is filed by Shri C. Srikrishna (Petitioner/ Financial Creditor) U/s.7 of IBC, 2016 R/w Rule 4 of I&B (AAA) Rules, 2016, by inter-alia seeking to initiate CIRP in respect of M/s. Skylark Mansion Private Limited (Respondent/Corporate Debtor) on the ground that it has committed default for an amount of Rs.50,79,697/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Seven only) which consists of principal amount and interest @ 10.75% p.a. This Petitioner, has approached RERA vide Complaint No.CMP/190102/ 0001817 and thus obtained an Order dated 23rd March, 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Officer, RERA, Bengaluru, Karnataka, wherein the developer/Respondent is directed to return the amount paid by the complainant with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the respective amount paid on respective date prior to April 2017 and at the rate of 10.75% P.A. from 01.05.2017 till the entire amount is refunded. When the Respondent is failed to comply with the Order, this Petitioner has issued Demand Notice dated 21.05.2019. In pursuant to that, the Respondent has given reply dated 24.05.2019, by inter-alia denying that the Respondent is not liable to pay an amount to the Petitioner much less than an amount of Rs.50,79,697/-, the alleged liability would not fall under the definition of financial debt; he cannot be considered as Financial Creditor under provisions of the Code; there is a pre-existing dispute as the Petitioner has not filed appeal and they have not produced required documents etc. The Respondent has filed its Statement of Objections dated 4th December, 2019, by reiterating similar objections by denying contentions of Petitioner. Since the Respondent has not preferred an Appeal against the said order, it became final, and thus the Respondent has admittedly committed default for Rs.50,79,697/-By perusal of the instant Petition, we are satisfied that the instant Petition/Application is complete as per law and default is not in dispute and eligible Resolution Professional was also suggested and thus it is a fit case to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. However, another Petition viz., C.P.(IB)No.389/BB/2019 is filed by 255 Home Buyers against the same Corporate Debtor, we have examined this case as per merits, as detailed supra.

Heard Mr. Joshua H Samuel, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri Prashantha Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents. We have carefully perused the pleadings of both the parties and extant provisions of the Code and Rules made thereunder and the law on issue.

Mr. Joshua H Samuel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the various averments made in the Company Petition, as briefly stated supra, has further submitted that the Respondent Company has become insolvent, wherein not only committed default in respect of 255 Homebuyers but also violated several statutory compliance. And the Petitioners have explored all the possibilities of restoring the Company and to resolved their issue, as the homebuyers has paid their life time earned money for purchase of flats hoping that they would get the flats as per the Agreements in question. They have earnestly, approached and made appeal to the Corporate Debtor to restore and continue their constructions, to purchase of flats in questions. Having lost their hopes to get their flats constructed and delivered under the present Management of the Company, they have taken recourse to invoke provisions of Code in order to maximise the time value of money by seeking to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The instant Petition is filed in accordance with law and there is an admitted debt and default and a qualified Resolution Professional namely Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00306/2017-18/10864 is proposed to appoint her as Interim Resolution Professional, who has filed Written Communication dated 23.09.2019, in a prescribed forum. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged the Adjudicating Authority to admit the instant Company Petition to initiating CIRP as prayed for.

Shri Prashantha Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent, by strongly opposing admission of the case, without filing Statement of Objections, has filed brief note dated 07.02.2020, by inter-alia stating as follows:

Therefore, he urged the Adjudicating Authority to dismiss the Application as devoid of merits.

The instant Company Petition was filed on 25.09.2019 on the file of this Adjudicating Authority, and thus the case was taken by the Bench, and granted several opportunities to the Respondent either to resolve the issue in question between Parties or to file their statement of objections in order to avoid initiation of CIRP against them, which would result in devastating effect on the affairs of Company. However, they have not availed the opportunity. It is relevant to refer and extract the docket proceedings of case as below:

Shri Mr. Joshua H Samuel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has sent a notice dated 23.12.2019, by R.P.A.D to the Respondents, which reads as under:

Though Vakalat was filed on 23.01.2020, there is no reply filed so far, though a total number of 255 home buyers have filed the instant case urging the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter as per merits, in the light of time frame fixed under the provisions of Code. As stated supra, thought the Respondent is aware of instant Proceedings since 25th September, 2019 and the Petitioners after failing to get relief despite their best efforts, have failed to place their version of case by way of filing their Statement of Objection. In the circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to decide the matter as merits. The Respondent has not placed any material to show that they are concerned with the grievances of the Petitioners apart from other similarly situated Persons.

It is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr. – (2018) 1 SCC 407", relevant portion of which is extracted below: -

The Skylark Ithaca Buyers Welfare Association (Petitioner herein) was registered with the District Registrar of Societies, Zone-3, Bangalore Urban Dist., dated 04.04.2019, they have also filed Memorandum of Society, Rules and Regulation of the Society. The Members of the Association have duly resolved in the meeting dated 20.07.2019 to initiate action/class action against the Developer Skylark Mansion Private Limited and ITHACA Estates Private Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of Skylark Mansion Private Limited) on behalf of its Members. It is not dispute that the Agreements to Sell and Construction Agreements in question, were executed between the Home Buyers; Skylark Mansion Private Limited as “Confirming Party” and M/s. ITHACA Estates Pvt. Ltd., (Subsidiary of M/s. Skylark Mansions Pvt. Ltd.,) as “Builder”. The Construction Agreements in question were executed by and between M/s. ITHACA Estates Pvt. Ltd., (Subsidiary of M/s. Skylark Mansions Pvt. Ltd.) “First Party/ Builder” and M/s. Skylark Mansion Pvt. Ltd., as “Confirming Party”. And various Payments in question made by the respective Parties to the Respondent is admittedly are not in dispute, as all copies of relevant Agreements, the receipts and acknowledgements are duly enclosed to the instant Petition.

The Skylark Ithaca is an Apartment project located in the heart of IT hub and first ever largest development within few Kilometers’ of distance from Central Bangalore. The Parties have exchanged various communications by way of several emails as evidenced by various emails enclosed to the Petition.

In order to resolve the issue, as per the Agreements in question, several meetings have been conducted between Skylark Management and representatives of Ithaca Apartments Buyers on various dates viz. 13.09.2018, 22.09.2018 again on 21.09.2018. When there was progress in constructions of the flats as promised, the Petitioners have addressed a letter dated 22.07.2019 to ITHACA Estates Private Limited and Skylark Mansions Private Limited and to their Directors, by inter-alia stating as follows:

The Respondent has addressed a reply letter dated 08.08.2019 to the above Demand Notice dated 22.07.2019, by inter-alia stating as follows:

As stated supra, the Respondent, though chose not to file its reply, has filed Brief Note dated 07.02.2020, about the Financial Solvency of the Corporate Debtor, wherein they have furnished the following projects of the Group Companies:

As stated supra, several aggrieved parties have approached Adjudicating Officer, RERA, Bengaluru, by filing several complaints. However, several of the Complaints have been disposed of by similar judgment dated 27.11.2018, by inter-alia stating as follows:

As stated supra, Mr. C. Srikrishna, another Petitioner, has filed C.P.(IB)No.314/BB/2019) against the same Corporate Debtor, on the ground that it has committed default for amount of Rs.50,79,697/- along with interest @ 10.75% p.a. He has also filed Complaint No. CMP/190102/0001817 before, the Adjudicating Officer, RERA, Bengaluru Karnataka and thus obtained judgment dated 23.05.2019, in his favor wherein the Respondent was directed to return the amount paid by the Complainant with interest. After issuing statutory Demand Notice dated 21.05.2019 under provisions of the Code, and receiving an un-tenable reply dated 24.05.2019, the above Petition was filed by seeking to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. After considering the merits of case, we are convinced that the Respondent has admittedly committed default in question, and it is fit case to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. As per Section 4 of the Code, Part II (Insolvency Resolution and Liquidation for Corporate Persons) would apply to matters relating to the Insolvency and Liquidation of Corporate Debtors where minimum of default is one lakh rupees. However, the instant case is filed by 255 Home Buyers against the very same Corporate Debtor, which is also found to be a fit case to initiate CIRP and two CIRP cannot be initiated against the same Corporate Debtor, C.P.(IB)No.314/BB/2019 is disposed of by separate order by granting liberty to that Petitioner to make his claim to the IRP being appointed in the instant case.

Before initiating CIRP, it is paramount responsibility of Adjudicating Authority to examine various aspects of Corporate Debtor by keeping in view the elements of debt and default in question and object of code etc. As stated supra, basic facts with regard to debt and default are not by the Respondent. Section 2 of the Code says that provisions of Code to any Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Acts, LLPs,; partnership firms etc., in relation to their insolvency, liquidation, voluntary liquidation, bankruptcy as the case may be. And by examining Annexure-23 (Independent Auditor's Report) that as per the Balance Sheet placed at page 1105, its Long Term Borrowings increased from Rs.386.54 crore as on 31.03.2017 to Rs.475.22 crore as on 31.03.2018. As per the Cash Flow Statement placed at page 1107 its cash flow showed a decrease from Rs.15.12 Crores as on 31.03.2017 to Rs.4.48 Crore as on 31.03.2018. Its losses as given at page 1115 show an increase from Rs.20.11 crore as on 31.03.2017 to Rs.29.10 crore as on 2017-18. Thus it is seen that the Company been showing increasingly borrowings and losses, and reducing cash flow over the years. This indicates an unhealthy financial status with regard to its ability to pay its debts. Therefore, the Company, apart from failing to complete the projects in question so as to deliver Flats as agreed upon between the parties, is prima facie insolvent. We are also not convinced with the financial status of the Company filed by the Respondent, as per Brief note dated 07.02.2020. Since the Respondent has failed to come forward to settle the issue raised in the instant Company Petition, there is no other alternative for the Adjudicating Authority except to consider the case as per merits.

It is also relevant to point out here that we cannot keep the grievances of more than 250 Home buyers pending that too without any response coming from the Corporate Debtor to show any sort of solution for the issue raised in the instant Petition. As per law, even after initiating CIRP, it is permissible for the parties to settle the issue in question and can withdraw the Petition with permission of Adjudicating Authority, by filing appropriate Application.

As per the ratio laid down in Apex court judgment "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr. – (2018) 1 SCC 407, as stated supra, once debt and default in question is established to satisfaction of Adjudicating Authority, Application/Petition is filed in accordance with law and eligible Resolution Professional is suggested to appoint as IRP, an Application/Petition filed Under Section 7 of Code is to be admitted. In the instant case, as detailed supra, we are satisfied that debt and default in question are occurred and established being not controverted by the Respondent, and qualified Resolution Professional namely Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari, with Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00306/2017-18/10864, as IRP ; who has filed her Written Consent in Form-2 dated 23.09.2019, by inter-alia affirming that she is eligible to be appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and as Independent Director in respect of the Corporate Debtor herein and that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against her with the Board or Indian Institute of Insolvency Professional of ICAI (IIIPI); she is currently serving as an Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional in three (03) CIRP process and Liquidator in NIL proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that said Resolution Professional is provisionally eligible to be appointed as IRP, and it is a fit case to admit to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor by appointing IRP, imposing moratorium etc.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, and by exercising powers conferred on this Adjudicating Authority, under proviso (5) (a) of Section 7, and other extant provisions of the IBC, 2016, the following orders are passed:

C.P.(IB)No.389/BB/2019 is hereby admitted by initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s. Skylark Mansions Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Debtor;

Mrs. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari, bearing I.P. Regn. No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00306/2017-18/10864, who is qualified Resolution Professional, is hereby appointed as Interim Resolution Professional, in respect of the Corporate Debtor to carry on the functions as mentioned under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and various rules issued by IBBI from time to time; Her fee is fixed at Rs. One Lakhs per month;

The following moratorium is declared prohibiting all of the following, namely: