Mani Mahesh Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Ashiana Ispat Limited

Per: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Judicial Member

The present Petition has been preferred under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’/ ‘Code’) by M/s MANI MAHESH ISPAT PVT. LTD. (‘Operational Creditor’/ ‘Petitioner’) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s ASHIANA ISPAT LIMITED LTD. (‘Corporate Debtor’/ ‘Respondent’) on account of default in payment of Rs. 5,73,65,819/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-Three Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Only).

The Petitioner is a registered company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Flat No. 47-E, 4th Floor, Landmark Near City Center, Shalimar Bagh (North West Delhi), North West Delhi Blk-Bw, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi- 1100088. Petitioner is engaged in the business of sale of steel products and delivers a comprehensive range of flat and long steel products. The present petition is filed by its authorized representative namely Mr. Navnitya Parkash Goyal.

The Corporate Debtor is a limited company registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on 25.03.1992. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated at A-1116 & 1117, RIICO Industrial Area Phase III, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan – 301019.

As per the Part-IV of Petition under Section 9 of the Code, the instant Petition pertains to default in payment of Rs. 5,73,65,819/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-Three Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Only) with respect to invoices from 29.04.2023 to 12.09.2023 and two debit notes dated 23.09.2023 raised by Operational Creditor. The relevant details as reflected in Part IV of the Petition are as follows:-

That, the corporate debtor did not give any reply to the notice under section 8 of IBC.

That, the Corporate Debtor is liable to make the Balance Payment to Operational Creditor with Interest thereafter since the time claimed amount became due. A lot of communication through mails and letters were done by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor demanding the due payment but the Corporate Debtor did not respond the said e-mails despite receipt, which proves that the Corporate Debtor did not raise any dispute as regards the transaction. The present dispute has not become time barred on the grounds of limitation since the Corporate Debtor has failed to reply to the demand notice dated 10.01.2025 sent by way of post and email. That the goods with the respect to the unpaid invoices were supplied by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor in the year 2023. Therefore, the present application has been filed well within the limitation period. 17. That, the Operational Creditor has suffered a lot of Mental pain and harassment at the hands of the Corporate Debtor; therefore, Operational Creditor is claiming outstanding amount of Rs. 5,73,65,819/- in words (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-Three Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen only) from the Corporate Debtor along with Interest @ 12% P.A. since 30.09.2023 till the date of payment. 2.AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE AT WHICH THE DEFAULT OCCURRED (ATTACH THE WORKINGS FOR5,73,65,819/- in words (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-Three Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen only) Date of Default: 30.09.2023 The default first occurred on 29.04.2023, when the Corporate Debtor failed to make full payment of Rs. 24,15,130/- towards the invoice bearing 21, e-way bill no. 791335632724 dated 29.04.2023 and paid COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT AND DATES OF DEFAULT IN TABULAR FORM)dome amount against aforesaid invoice of Rs. 13,25,901/- and outstanding amount against the said bill is Rs. 10,89,229/-. The Corporate Debtor has lastly made payment of Rs. 45,00,000/- on 30.09.2023. 1. The operational creditor’s bank has given the confirmation that ‘non receipt of payment from M/s Ashiyana Ispat during the period of 30.09.2023 to 13.01.2025’. that since then, the Corporate Debtor has failed to discharge its debts, even in partial manner. The copy of confirmation letter dated 13.01.2025 hereto and marked as Annexure-P-14.

The submissions of Operational Creditor on the basis of which the instant Petition under Section 9 of the Code has been filed are as follows:-

Operational Creditor herein was incorporated on 30.03.2006 under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture and sale of steel products. The Corporate Debtor had been maintaining regular business relations with Operational Creditor and used to place verbal orders from time to time for the purchase of steel products, including Mild Steel Billets and Mild Steel Ingots. Pursuant to such orders, Operational Creditor supplied the goods to the Corporate Debtor and raised invoices in respect thereof. The payments against the invoices raised by Operational Creditor were made by Corporate Debtor from time to time in the ordinary course of business.

On 29.04.2023, Operational Creditor supplied steel products to Corporate Debtor and raised an invoice for a sum of ₹24,15,130/- towards the material supplied. Upon receipt of the material and invoice, the Corporate Debtor assured Operational Creditor that payment against the said invoice would be made shortly. Consequently, Operational Creditor supplied the goods covered under the aforesaid invoices in accordance with the orders placed by the Corporate Debtor. The goods were duly received by the Corporate Debtor and no dispute regarding the quantity or quality of the material supplied was ever raised during the course of business transactions.

Operational Creditor discharged all statutory obligations pertaining to the said supplies and deposited the applicable GST on the invoices raised upon the Respondent. Further, the Corporate Debtor deducted TDS on the amounts payable under the invoices and the said deductions are duly reflected in Form 26AS. However, no payment was received against the said invoice immediately upon supply of the goods.

Thereafter, during the course of business dealings between the parties from 29.04.2023 till 12.09.2023, Operational Creditor continued to supply goods to the Corporate Debtor under various invoices. In respect of the supplies made, Operational Creditor raised 27 separate invoices upon the Corporate Debtor. In addition, thereto, two debit notes were also raised by Operational Creditor in respect of the transactions undertaken between the parties.

Despite receipt of the goods supplied under the aforesaid invoices, the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the outstanding amounts payable thereunder. Consequently, the amounts due under the said 27 invoices and two debit notes remained outstanding and payable by the Corporate Debtor to Operational Creditor.

The date of default in Part IV of the Petition is from 29.04.2023 to 12.09.2023. Operational Creditor has raised various invoices in the aforementioned period. The details of invoices are reproduced hereunder:-

On 30.09.2023, the Corporate Debtor made a lump-sum payment of ₹45,00,000/- towards its outstanding liability and assured Operational Creditor that the balance outstanding amount would be cleared shortly. Upon receipt of the said payment, Operational Creditor adjusted the same in its books of accounts against the outstanding invoices in accordance with its accounting practice. After adjustment of the aforesaid payment of ₹45,00,000/-, a sum of ₹13,25,901/- stood appropriated towards the invoice dated 29.04.2023, which had originally been raised for ₹24,15,130/-. Consequently, an amount of ₹10,89,229/- remained outstanding against the said invoice dated 29.04.2023.

Operational Creditor submitted that even after giving due credit and adjustment of the payment of ₹45,00,000/- received from the Corporate Debtor, the invoices raised from time to time towards the goods supplied remained unpaid. As on 30.09.2023, a total amount of ₹5,73,65,819/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-Three Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Only) remained outstanding and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant.

On 31.10.2023, the Corporate Debtor duly acknowledged and confirmed the ledger account maintained by Operational Creditor for the period commencing from 01.04.2023 and ending on 31.10.2023. By way of such confirmation, the Corporate Debtor acknowledged an outstanding balance of ₹5,73,65,819/- as due and payable to the Applicant.

Despite repeated assurances and demands for payment, the Corporate Debtor failed to discharge its admitted liability. Consequently, on 13.12.2023, Operational Creditor lodged an FIR against the Corporate Debtor under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the outstanding dues.

Thereafter, in acknowledgment of its outstanding liability of ₹5,73,65,819/-, the Respondent issued three cheques in favour of Operational Creditor. The first cheque bearing No. 635252 dated 21.10.2024 was issued for a sum of ₹2,00,00,000/-. The second cheque bearing No. 635253 dated 22.10.2024 was issued for a sum of ₹2,00,00,000/-. The third cheque bearing No. 635254 dated 23.10.2024 was issued for a sum of ₹1,73,65,819/-. The aggregate value of the aforesaid cheques corresponded to the total outstanding liability of ₹5,73,65,819/-.

It was submitted that the aforesaid cheques were retained by Operational Creditor on the instructions of Respondent and were not immediately presented for encashment. Subsequently, upon the specific request of the Corporate Debtor, Operational Creditor presented the said cheques for encashment during January 2025. Upon presentation, all three cheques were dishonored and returned unpaid on 10.01.2025 with the endorsement “Exceed Arrangement”.

In view of the continued default committed by the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor issued a Demand Notice dated 10.01.2025 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 through registered post and e-mail at the registered office as well as other known addresses of the Corporate Debtor. The Demand Notice sent through registered post at the registered address was returned. However, the Demand Notice sent at the alternate address of the Corporate Debtor was duly delivered on 15.01.2025. The Demand Notice transmitted through electronic mail was also successfully delivered on 10.01.2025, thereby effecting service of the notice upon the Corporate Debtor in accordance with law.

Prior to issuance of the Demand Notice, the Operational Creditor had repeatedly called upon the Corporate Debtor to clear the outstanding dues. Various e-mails and reminders were sent by Operational Creditor on 01.11.2023, 03.11.2023, 08.11.2023, 14.11.2023, 02.12.2023, 09.12.2023, 15.12.2023, 19.12.2023, 25.12.2023, 09.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 requesting the Corporate Debtor to liquidate the outstanding amount payable to the Applicant.

The moot objection raised by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor against the Operational Creditor in the present case is not maintainable because of the pre-existing dispute between the parties.

Respondent contended that present Petition has been filed by M/s Mani Mahesh Ispat Private Limited through its Director and Authorized Representative, Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal, son of Shri Kundan Lal Goyal. It is the case of Respondent that Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal, who has instituted the present proceedings on behalf of the Petitioner Company in his capacity as Director and Authorized Representative, has also instituted Civil Suit (Original Side) No. 320/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in his individual capacity. In the said Civil Suit, Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal has averred that he had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2024 with Smt. Swati Jain, arrayed therein as Defendant No. 1, in respect of certain immovable property described in the said Agreement, for a total sale consideration of ₹8,00,00,000/-.

Further, in the aforesaid Civil Suit, Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal has further pleaded that out of the total sale consideration of ₹8,00,00,000/-, a sum of ₹7,80,00,000/- stood paid by way of adjustment of the outstanding dues of the business concerns associated with him. Respondent further stated that the pleadings filed in the said Civil Suit contain a break-up of the aforesaid amount of ₹7,80,00,000/-, wherein a sum of approximately ₹5,73,65,819/- pertains to the claim forming the subject matter of the present Petition and a further sum of approximately ₹1,50,83,395/- pertains to M/s Shree Balaji Rolling Mills.

Furthermore, in paragraph 4 of the Civil Suit, Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal has described M/s Mani Mahesh Ispat Private Limited and M/s Shree Balaji Rolling Mills as business entities associated with him. 6.4 In paragraphs 7 and 29 of the said Civil Suit, Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal has referred to adjustment of the amounts allegedly due to the aforesaid entities towards the consideration payable under the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2024. 6.5 Subsequently, Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal instituted the aforesaid Civil Suit seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2024 and enforcement of the obligations arising thereunder. The said Civil Suit has been instituted in relation to the Agreement to Sell and the immovable property forming the subject matter thereof, and the pleadings filed therein contain reference to the amounts claimed to be due to M/s Mani Mahesh Ispat Private Limited and M/s Shree Balaji Rolling Mills.

Respondent further submits that Operational Creditor, in the Civil Suit pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has pleaded adjustment of the amount of ₹5,73,65,819/- towards the sale consideration under the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2024, while in the present proceedings the same amount is sought to be claimed as an operational debt.

It is the case of Respondent that if the suit is being contested, Operational Creditor cannot be permitted to pursue the instant Petition as Operational Creditor as the same is estopped from making any claim for any debt whatsoever, when the very same debt as claimed in this Petition has been claimed to have been adjusted by Operational Creditor's promoter for director against the part of the sale consideration under the agreement to sell dated 14.02.2024.

Respondent submitted that the aforesaid pleadings and the pendency of the Civil Suit demonstrate the existence of disputes between the parties in relation to the said amount prior to the institution of the present Petition.

Operational Creditor has filed its rejoinder denying all the averments made by Respondent. The brief submissions under the rejoinder are as follows:-

It is submitted that vide order dated 11.07.2025, this Hon'ble Tribunal granted four weeks' time to Respondent for filing its reply. Thereafter, on 11.08.2025, a last opportunity was granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal directing the Corporate Debtor to file its reply within one week. Further, vide order dated 07.10.2025, this Hon'ble Tribunal, upon the request of the Respondent, granted a further period of ten days subject to payment of costs of ₹11,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund through Bharatkosh and directed the Corporate Debtor to place the receipt of the said payment on record.

Operational Creditor further submitted that the objections raised by the Respondent under Section 65 of the Code are misconceived and devoid of merit since Corporate Debtor has failed to place any material on record to establish the existence of either of the aforesaid ingredients.

Further, the operational debt forming the subject matter of the present petition is duly evidenced by invoices, ledger accounts, bank statements and other contemporaneous records placed on record along with the Petition.

Moreover, the Civil Suit (OS) No. 320/2025 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi came to be instituted subsequent to the filing of the present Petition. The present proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were initiated prior thereto and the subsequent institution of the Civil Suit does not alter the nature of the operational debt forming the subject matter of the present Petition. The Suit in question was instituted seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2024 executed between Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal and Smt. Swati Jain in their individual capacities and pertains to the transfer of an immovable property forming the subject matter thereof.

It is the case of Operational Creditor that Respondent has not disclosed the Written Statement filed by the Defendants (i.e., the Operational Creditors herein) in the said proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein a specific objection has been taken by Shri Puneet Jain that he is not a party to the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2024 and that there exists no privity of contract between Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal and Shri Puneet Jain in relation to the said Agreement.

Further, paragraph 7 of the preliminary objections contained in the Written Statement records that separate proceedings in relation to the corporate dues of M/s Ashiana Ispat Limited are already pending before the competent forums. The Written Statement further records that the dispute involved in the Civil Suit pertains to the property transaction forming the subject matter of the Agreement to Sell.

Furthermore, Shri Puneet Jain has also filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking deletion of his name from the array of parties in the aforesaid Civil Suit and the application under Order I Rule 10(2) also records that certain outstanding dues were payable by M/s Ashiana Ispat Limited to M/s Mani Mahesh Ispat Private Limited and M/s Shree Balaji Rolling Mills. 7.8 Operational Creditor further submitted that subsequent to the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2024, the Corporate Debtor issued Cheque No. 635252 dated 21.10.2024 for ₹2,00,00,000/-, Cheque No. 635253 dated 22.10.2024 for ₹2,00,00,000/- and Cheque No. 635254 dated 23.10.2024 for ₹1,73,65,819/- in favour of the Operational Creditor. It is submitted that the aggregate amount covered under the aforesaid cheques was ₹5,73,65,819/-, corresponding to the outstanding operational debt claimed in the present Petition. This reflects the continuing acknowledgment of liability by the Corporate Debtor towards the outstanding amount claimed by the Operational Creditor. 7.9 Further, the initiation of proceedings under Code for recovery of an operational debt does not alter, affect or prejudice the rights and remedies claimed by the parties in the Civil Suit pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is further submitted that the material placed on record establishes the existence of operational debt and the occurrence of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor.

We have heard the learned counsels for both parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, rejoinder, additional affidavits, documents placed on record and written submissions filed by both the parties.

Before we proceed with the facts of the present case, the statutory framework regarding the Application under Section 9 of the Code needs to be recapitulated. An application under Section 9 of the Code can only be filed after the delivery of a demand notice as provided under Section 8 of the Code. Section 8 of the Code requires the Operational Creditor, upon the occurrence of default, to deliver a Demand Notice for unpaid Operational Debt. Furthermore, the Section 8(2) specifies that the Corporate Debtor must, within 10 days of receiving the Demand Notice, inform the Operational Creditor of any existing dispute.

Under Section 9(1), if Operational Creditor does not receive payment from the Corporate Debtor or notice of the dispute under Sub-section (2) of Section 8, may file an Application under Section 9(1) of the Code. Section 9(1) is as follows:

In the present case, Corporate Debtor used to regularly purchase Mild Steel Ingots & Mild Steel Billets from the Operational Creditor and the Operational Creditor used to raise its invoices to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor had cleared the payments with respect to the invoices raised prior to 29.04.2023. However, Corporate Debtor failed to make the payment towards the last 27 invoices from 29.04.2023 to 12.09.2023 and two debit notes dated 23.09.2023 raised by Operational Creditor amounting to an outstanding balance of Rs. 5,73,65,819/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-Three Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen only) as on 30.09.2023.

On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has vehemently argued that an original Civil Suit (OS) No. 320/2025 is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court filed by Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal which constitutes a pre-existing dispute between the parties.

The aforementioned suit bearing original Civil Suit (OS) No. 320/2025 was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.02.2024 for sale of certain properties described therein at a consideration of Rs. 8 Crore against the total outstanding amount of Rs. 7.80 Crore.

At this juncture, it is relevant to appreciate the terms of the agreement dated 14.02.2024. The said agreement was entered into between Shri Puneet Jain (Director of Ashiana Ispat Limited) and his wife Smt. Swati Jain, as first party and confirming party respectively; and Shri Navnitya Prakash Goyal (Director of Mani Mahesh Ispat Pvt. Ltd.), as second party. In the said agreement, it was stated that second party has supplied material to first party and amount of Rs. 5,73,65,819/- was outstanding against M/s Mani Mahesh Ispat Pvt. Ltd.; amount of Rs. 1,50,83,395/- was outstanding against M/s Shree Balaji Rolling Mills and other outstanding amount was Rs. 55,51,786/-. To settle the said liability, it was agreed upon in condition no. 3 of the said agreement that “the first party hereby confirm and accept that out of sale amount Rs. 8,00,00,000/-, at first second party will adjust his outstanding dues for Rs. 7,80,00,000/- and balance Rs. 20,00,000/- after deduction of TDS shall be payable after execution of registration of sale documents.” It was further agreed that if the entire outstanding dues of Rs. 7.80 Crore were repaid by Ashiana Ispat Limited by 30.04.2024, the Agreement to Sell would stand terminated.

A separate Agreement for sale dated 14.02.2024 was executed between Mr. Navnitya Prakash Goyal and Ms. Swati Jain for property comprising of first floor in Building No. 11, Street No. E-13, Government Servants Cooperative House Building Society at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,00,000/-. For ease of reference, the deed of agreement dated 14.02.2024 is reproduced hereunder:-

Upon careful perusal of the deed of agreement dated 14.02.2024, it transpires that terms of said agreement not only emphasize the outstanding debt but also adjusts the outstanding amount against consideration of sale of property.

The law regarding “pre-existing dispute” is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., (2017) ibclaw.in 01 SC, wherein it was held that while considering an application under Section 9 of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority is only required to examine whether there exists a real dispute which is not spurious, hypothetical, illusory or a mere bluster. Further, the dispute must have existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code. The relevant para of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

At this stage, it is of paramount importance to note that Corporate Debtor never disputed the quality of goods/services, the quantum of debt or the liability itself. On the contrary, the very terms of the Agreement dated 14.02.2024 unambiguously acknowledge the existence of the debt and merely prescribe the mode (i.e., conditional sale of property against outstanding dues) and timeline for its discharge. If the operational debt stood finally adjusted/extinguished on 14.02.2024, then there should have been no need for the Corporate Debtor to issue three cheques dated 21.10.2024, 22.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 aggregating to Rs. 5,73,65,819/- being the precise amount claimed in the Petition. The subsequent issue of cheques also shows continuance of the debt and this is inconsistent with the plea taken by the Corporate Debtor that the liability had already been discharged. Further, Corporate Debtor had also not shown any journal entry, ledger reversal entry, settlement account or Board Resolution reflecting discharge of the operational debt. Hence, in the absence of contemporaneous accounting record, plea of the Corporate Debtor cannot be accepted.

Additionally, Corporate Debtor has not placed on record any correspondence, legal notice, complaint, arbitration proceedings or any other material demonstrating that a bona fide dispute regarding the operational debt existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code. Even the Civil Suit bearing (OS) No. 320/2025 was filed on 14.05.2025 well after the issuance of the Demand Notice dated 10.01.2025.

Furthermore, the Hon'ble NCLAT, in its judgment under the case titled M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. v. M/s Logix Infratech Pvt. Ltd., (2022) ibclaw.in 693 NCLAT, allowed the appeal filed by Operational Creditor and directed the NCLT to pass order of admission holding that a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement entered between the parties does not change the nature of underlying transaction which was operational debt. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

At this juncture, it is germane to refer the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited (supra) wherein in para 25 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for adjudicating Section 9 Application. The Para 25 is as follows: -

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited (supra), the essential required for admission of Section 9 Petition stand satisfied and are as follows:-

Hence, all ingredients required for admission of Petition under Section 9 of the Code are satisfied. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to admit Corporate Debtor, i.e., Ashiana Ispat Ltd. into CIRP.

Accordingly, this Adjudicating Authority deems it appropriate to appoint Mr. Prashant Agarwal, having Registration Number IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00053/2017-18/10127 and e-mail id [email protected] duly registered with ICAI Insolvency Professional Agency, to be appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional.

The IRP is directed to take all such steps as are required under the statute, inter-alia in terms of Sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Code and transact proceedings with utmost dedication, honesty and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and Rules and Regulations thereunder. It is directed to the Interim Resolution Professional /Resolution Professional to check the genuineness of the claim while admitting the operational dues of the Petitioner.

Consequences of initiation of CIRP shall be inter-alia as follows:

a. The IRP appointed by the Adjudicating Authority, is directed to take over the affairs of the Corporate Debtor and duties as required to be performed by him under the provisions of Code including issue of publication in widely circulated Newspapers as contemplated under the provisions of the Code and calling for claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor; and collation of the same shall be done.

b. Further, as a sequel of admission, moratorium as envisaged under Section 14 of IBC, 2016 is invoked concerning the Corporate Debtor, which will be in vogue during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. The IRP shall carry out CIRP strictly as per the timelines specified and as envisaged under the provisions of IBC, 2016 in relation to the Corporate Debtor.

c. The said IRP shall act strictly in compliance with the provisions of IBC, 2016 and defray his expenses to be incurred and fees on the account. The Petitioner is directed to act in accordance with Regulation 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards the CIRP cost initially to the account of IRP within three days from the date of this order. The IRP shall spend the above amount towards expenses and not towards fee till his fee is decided by CoC.

d. In terms of Section 17 & 19 of IBC, 2016, all personnel of the Corporate Debtor including promoters and Board of Directors, whose powers shall stand suspended, shall extend all cooperation to the IRP during his tenure as such and the management of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor shall vest with the IRP.

e. Further, in term of Regulation 4(3) of the IBBI (Resolution Process For Corporate Persons), 2016 the creditors shall provide information in respect of assets and liabilities of the Corporate Debtor to the IRP and it is incumbent upon the IRP also to approach the Creditors to seek such information.

f. The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is also directed to inform and forward a copy of this Order to all the statutory authorities such as Enforcement Directorate, Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Income tax department and concerned Electricity department about the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor within a period of three days.

g. In terms of Section 9 of IBC, 2016, the Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Petitioner, the Corporate Debtor, and the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed by this Adjudicating Authority within 3 days of passing of the Order.

h. A Copy of this order shall also be communicated to IBBI for its record, and to any other body/entity to whom the Corporate Debtor is under legal/contractual obligation to inform/update.

In the circumstances, Company Petition bearing CP No. (IB)- 25/09/JPR/2025 is admitted.