AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI L. N. GUPTA, MEMBER (T)
M/s Propertree Real Estate Solutions Private Limited (Applicant/Operational Creditor) has filed this Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC, 2016') read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s Unibera Developers Private Limited ('Corporate Debtor/Respondent').
The Corporate Debtor namely, Unibera Developers Private Limited, having CIN U70102DL2012PTC229805, is a company incorporated on 10.01.2012 under the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, having registered office at 2 Jay House, Bihari Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi-110062, which is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
It is stated by the Applicant/Operational Creditor that it was engaged by the Corporate Debtor vide Agreement 17.01.2013 as an authorized broker for its upcoming Unibera H++ Project at Noida Extension (Greater Noida West). In pursuance to the said Agreement, the applicant facilitated sale of 101 flats, for which the corporate debtor is liable to pay brokerage/commission due and payable. It is submitted that out of the total 101 flats, during the course of business, some of the flats were cancelled due to delay in construction and some were cancelled due to non-timely payment of dues by the customers. Hence, the applicant gave NOC to adjust the brokerage of the cancelled flats. The NOC given by the applicant has been annexed with the application.
The applicant raised invoice dated 01.10.2016 and sent the same by email to the corporate debtor along with the list of clients and flats. It is submitted by the Applicant that as per the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor, an amount of Rs.99,77,449/-is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor.
The Applicant adds that the corporate debtor had agreed to give him a unit No. T5-1204 as consideration for the commission work of the applicant. However, due to the cancellation of flats, a sum of Rs.17,05,850/- was adjusted against the unit No. T5-1204.
The Applicant further states that under the circumstances, it was constrained to issue a 'demand note' dated 17.05.2018. Subsequently, the Applicant had issued Demand Notice dated 21.05.2018 under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016 to the Corporate Debtor. The notice was duly delivered at the erstwhile registered office address of the Corporate Debtor. The corporate debtor sent its reply dated 28.05.2018, wherein it had admitted that an amount of Rs.8,01,776/- is payable to the applicant/operational creditor.
The applicant has filed the affidavit dated 10.07.2018, in compliance of Section 9 (3)(b) of the IBC, 2016, confirming that the corporate debtor has not given any notice relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt nor it has received any payment against the outstanding amount.
It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the applicant had proposed the name of Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak having registration no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00685/2017-2018/11162 for appointment as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for the corporate debtor and filed Written Communication in form-2 was (annexed) with the application.
Subsequently, the applicant filed an I.A. No. 1556/2019 to change the IRP and proposed the name of Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal, IP having registration number IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00742/2018-2019 /12263 for appointment as an IRP, who has given his consent in Form-2. The applicant accordingly prayed for an amendment in the main application.
The applicant also stated that this Adjudicating Authority had reserved the matter for orders vide order dated 29.11.2018 of the predecessor Bench. However, the said order was not pronounced.
This Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 03.09.2021 had directed that I.A. 1556/ND/2019 will be disposed of along with the main application. In view of the averments made by the applicant in the aforementioned I.A, since there will be no loss or prejudice caused to the corporate debtor, the prayer of the applicant in I.A. 1556/ND/2019 is allowed. The written consent of Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal is taken on record for his appointment as an IRP of the corporate debtor.
As per Part-IV of the application, an amount of Rs.1,16,83,299/- is due and payable by corporate debtor, out of which Rs.99,77,449/- is to be paid as brokerage for flat booking/sale and Rs.17,05,850/- is to be paid for adjustment against cancellation of unit T5-1204. The invoice dated 01.10.2016 has been placed on record.
The corporate debtor has filed its reply to the aforesaid application and raised the following objections:
The claim raised by the applicant is time barred and hence, the present application is labile to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation. It is submitted that the applicant has claimed debt on the basis of agreement dated 17.01.2013, which was valid till 18.04.2013 and the present application has been filed on 10th July 2018 i.e., after 5 years from the cause of action.
The applicant was appointed as broker for the corporate debtor's 02 projects i.e., UNIBERA TOWER and UNIBERA H++ by agreements dated 10.04.2012 & 17.01.2013. The status of the total Units booked by applicant is as follows:
| S.N | Units Booked and Active Units | Brokerage Amount | |
| 1. | Booking done under agreement dated 10.04.2012 for project-Unibera Tower | 36 Units | |
| Less: Cancelled Units | 18 units | ||
| Active Units For Brokerage | 18 Units | 19,23,237 | |
| 2. | Booking done under Agreement dated 17.01.2013 for project-Unibera H++ | 66 Units | |
| Less: Cancelled Units | 34 Units | ||
| Active Units for Brokerage | 32 units | 54,65,818 | |
| 3. | Total Brokerage | 73,89,055 |
It was agreed as well as recorded in the agreements that in case of withdrawal/ cancellation / surrender of booking, no brokerage will be paid to the applicant and in case, it has already been paid, the amount would be deducted / adjusted from the payable brokerage.
The corporate debtor has denied that the applicant had raised bill dated 01.10.2016. Further, it has also denied that the total commission payable to the operational creditor as per the statement enclosed is Rs.1,53,54,893/-.
It is stated that a dispute was raised prior to the issue of demand notice vide email dated 13.10.2016 in respect of quantum of operational debt and it is denied that a sum of Rs.1,16,83,299/- being the total of principal claim of Rs.99,77,449/- and adjustment against Unit No. T5-1204 of Rs.17,05,850/- is due and payable to the operational creditor by the Corporate Debtor.
It is submitted by the corporate debtor that in reply to the demand notice, it was a typographical error that the amount of Rs.8,01,776/- is payable by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor.
The respondent has also filed its Written Submissions reiterating the aforesaid objections and adding the following:
That there exists a pre-existing dispute. Accordingly relying upon the case of Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 3453: 2017 SCC Online SC 1154:(2018) 1SCC(Civ.), the present application is liable to be dismissed.
That the corporate debtor had earlier offered to pay a sum of Rs.8,01,776/- (admitted amount) to the operational creditor. The corporate debtor has averred the following :
"The alleged operational creditor has claimed alleged sum of Rs. 1,16,83,299/- (Rs. One Crore sixteen lacs eighty-three thousand three hundred ninety-nine), being principal claim of Rs. 99,77,449/- and adjustment in unit T5-1204 of Rs.17,05,850/- along with interest claim of Rs 83,62,660/- (Total Rs.1,96,25,505/-) whereas the corporate debtor in its reply dated 28.05.2018 to the demand notice admitted due amount of Rs. 8,01,776/- and offered to pay during hearing which was not accepted by the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor had earlier offered to pay a sum of Rs.8,01,776/- (admitted amount) through Demand Draft already purchased vide dated 17.01.2020 No. 218524 drawn on HDFC Bank, branch Sector 18, Noida for Rs.8,00,000/-. That during the earlier hearings the debtor had offered to pay but not accepted by the operational creditor. The copy of Demand Draft is attached with submissions (Annexure A/2). The disputed amount will be adjudicated by the Civil Court as the same is denied and prima-facie evident from records and submissions hereinafter."
That the documents attached in the present application are fabricated. The corporate debtor has relied upon the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India, 2 MLJ 162(SC) and stated that the applicant is also guilty of Supressio veri, Suggestio falsi.
We have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the averments made in the application, reply, and written submissions.
That the main objections of the Corporate Debtor are as follows:
That the applicant's application is time barred.
That there is pre-existing disputes regarding the claim of the applicant, as the dispute over quantum of operational debt was already raised vide email dated 13.10.2016.
As regards the issue of limitation, we observe that the Applicant has based its claim mainly over the invoice dated 01.10.2016, which is the date of default mentioned by the Applicant in Part-IV of its application. The corporate debtor has stated that since the agreement was valid till 18.04.2013, the claim of the applicant in respect of said agreement is now barred by limitation as the period of 03 years has already been elapsed. However, as per the applicant's averment, the cause of action arose since the date of default on 01.10.2016, when the invoice was raised. Further, we notice that on 03.04.2017, the corporate debtor had sent a reminder note to the Operational Creditor for completion of payment of 70 % of Installment dues against the booking of Unit No. T5-1204. Accordingly, if we count the period of limitation both from the date of default mentioned by the Applicant as well as the reminder note raised by the Corporate
Debtor, the present application having been filed on 17.07.2018, falls well within the limitation period of 03 years.
Further, it is seen from the reply of the corporate debtor that the last payment of the brokerage amounting to Rs.1,36,125/- was made to the Operational Creditor on 04.08.2015. The details of the payments as given in para 6 of the reply filed by the corporate debtor are reproduced below :
It is respectfully submitted that the bookings were done through the Operational Creditor which was paid at relevant time and nothing remains due to be paid. The following payments, after deduction of TDS at source on admitted due amount, were made by the respondent Corporate Debtor from time to time to the Applicant Operational Creditor :
Sl No Date of Payment Cheque No Amt (Rs) 1. 04-06-2012 000097 3,50,603/= 2. 17-08-2012 010846 7,00,000/= 3. 18-08-2012 010847 3,50,000/= 4. 07-09-2012 000330 1,84,380/= 5. 07-09-2012 643955 6,55,236/= 6. 28-09-2012 643963 5,16,446/= 7. 08-10-2012 000373 1,05,510/= 8. 25-10-2012 643971 3,46,396/= 9. 22-11-2012 883413 5,05,620/= 10 22-11-2012 Cash 36,618/= 11. 10-03-2015 (*) 5,74,800/= 12. 10-03-2015 (*) 4,50,000/= 13. 25-06-2015 188953 1,40,682/= 14. 02-07-2015 (*) 10,69,588/= 15. 02-07-2015 (*) 6,00,000/= 16. 02-07-2015 (*) 1,31,156/= 17. 02-07-2015 (*) 97,313/= 18. 17-07-2015 Cash 16,650/= 19. 23-07-2015 Cash 15,000/= 20. 29-07-2015 Cash 8,700/= 21. 04-08-2015 (*) 1,36,125/= Hence, even if we count the period of limitation from the date of the last payment of brokerage by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor on 04.08.2015, we find that the present application, having been filed on 17.07.2018, is well within the limitation period of 03 years.
Secondly, the Corporate Debtor's case is that it had already raised a dispute regarding the debt claimed by bill dated 01.10.2016. In support of its contention, the Corporate Debtor has placed emphasis on the email dated 13.10.2016, scanned copy of which is reproduced below:
Customer Care Unibera crm@unibera.in Announce R13 25 Fwd: Brokerage Bill 2 messages Jyoti UNIBERA jyoti@unibera.in To: Customer Care Unibera crm@unibera.in/crm@unibera.in Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:27 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Nisha Pandey mailtonishapandey@gmail.com/mailtonishapandey@gmail.com Date: 13 October 2016 at 14:20:50 IST To: digvijay unibera digvijay@unibera.com/digvijay@unibera.com Cc: Mrilunjay Bhaiya mrilunjay@unibera.com, Arun Gupta arungupta@propertree.in/arungupta@propertree.in Subject: Re: Brokerage Bill/arungupta@propertree.in Dear Team Unibera, Kindly adjust the mentioned amount (attached bill raised by Propertree) in the unit booked on my name T3-201, in your project Unibera, located at Plot No. 06, Sector-01, Noida Extn. against the pending dues. Feel free to call for further assistance. Best regards Nisha Pandey 9540953342/9818004794 On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Arun Gupta arungupta@propertree.in wrote: Dear Sir,/arungupta@propertree.in I am attaching a copy of our brokerage bill sent to your good office by speedpost reference EU627341375EN. You are requested to kindly clear the same at the earliest. As you will see in the bill, like earlier occasions, we have once again agreed to getting part of the bill payment adjusted in the two units that we hold in the project. While this is not our preferred mode of taking payment and it puts a huge burden on our company by severely hampering our cash-flows, we give up and will accept payments in this mode. Thanking you, Chief Executive Officer +91 9818004713, +91 9910485415 arungupta@propertree.in Propertree Real Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. all.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5d8e9a4b7e&jsver=GAFHaMvshdw.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180506.0ti_p9&view=pt&q=arungupta%20propertree.in&qs= COPY 2 attachments Unibera Bill P2.pdf 667K Unibera Bill P1.pdf 162K Customer Care Unibera crm@unibera.in Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:37 PM To: Arun Gupta arungupta@propertree.in, Nisha Pandey mailtonishapandey@gmail.com Co: digvijay unibera digvijay@unibera.com, Jyoti Unibera /jyoti@unibera.in/mailtonishapandey@gmail.com/crm@unibera.in Dear Sir/Madam, Greetings from Unibera Family! The bill you sent is not acceptable, kindly come office and meet Digvijay Sir for the same because inventories/bookings mentioned in the bill not correct.-It is already finalize by Ms. Nisha Pandey. Regards, Sandeep Gupta Sr. Manager Customer Relationship Management Unibera Developers Pvt Ltd A-11a, Sector-58, Noida Off: +91-120-4807 450 | Mob: +91- 9873480102 www.unibera.com Excuse any typo mistakes Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail - Save paper. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail message, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed and strictly private and confidential and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure. Access to this Internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening the attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The Sender and/or Unibera Group including its Associate companies are not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this electronic mail message or its attachments. This email does not constitute the commencement of legal relations between the receiver and the sender and/or Unibera group. [Quoted text hidden]
That from perusal of the aforesaid email, it is observed that the Corporate Debtor has refused to accept the bill by stating that "The bill you sent is not acceptable, kindly come office and meet Digvijay Sir for the same because inventories/bookings mentioned in the bill not correct. It is already finalize by Ms. Nisha Pandey."
However, when we peruse the reply dated 03.10.2018 filed by the corporate debtor to the Application filed under Section 9, we find that in Para 4 of its averments, the Corporate Debtor has stated that :
"4.It is denied that the applicant operational creditor has raised Bill dated 01-10-2016 (Annexure I) as claimed in the petition. It is denied that total commission is Rs 1,53,54,983/= as per statement closed."
Thus, from the para 20 and 21 above, it becomes clear that the Corporate Debtor has blown hot and cold at the same time. On the one hand, it had stated in its e-mail dated 13.10.2016 that inventories /bookings mentioned in the Bill are not correct, on the other hand it has stated in its Reply that the Operational Creditor had not raised the Bill dated 01.10.2016. Evidently, both the statements are contradictory to each other which, in our considered view, shows that the dispute is a patently feeble argument and moonshine. Here, it is worthwhile to refer to the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Versus Kirusa Software Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017 dated 21.09.2017, where it is observed that :
"40 It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the "existence" of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." (Emphasis Supplied)
Additionally, we further observe contradictions in the statements of the Corporate Debtor with regard to admission of the amount. In the notice of dispute dated 28.05.2018 (Pg 36-39 of the Application) sent by the corporate debtor through its advocate Mr. M.P. Singh in reply to the demand notice, the corporate debtor has stated -
"4.That as per the records/statement of Accounts maintained by my client maintained by it in its ordinary course of business the total due amount which my client is liable to pay your client as brokerage / commission is Rs 8,01,776/- (Rupees eight lakhs one thousand seven hundred seventy-Six) only...". (Emphasis Supplied)
Per contra, when we refer to the Reply dated 03.10.2018 filed by the Corporate Debtor to the Application filed under Sec 9, we find that in Para 10 of its averments, the Corporate Debtor has stated -
"10.That the respondent corporate debtor had already denied the amount claimed in the demand notice dated 21.05.2018. In reply it was typographical error about amount of Rs. 8,01,776/= stated to be payable by the respondent corporate debtor. The advocate sent reply has stated that it was wrongly written and without authorization for which addendum was issued with clarification. That even otherwise there is dispute by the Corporate Debtor regarding claim raised by the Operational Creditor and the documents annexed herewith by the respondent debtor clearly demonstrates that nothing is due and payable and bills/correspondence by the applicant operational creditor are fabricated and false." (Emphasis Supplied)
However, the Corporate Debtor has failed to produce or place any such addendum on record in support of its contention. On the contrary, in its Written Arguments dated 19.01.2020 uploaded by the Corporate Debtor on the DMS/E-filing Portal, the Corporate Debtor has reiterated the statement which it had made earlier in the 'notice of dispute'. The statement of the Corporate Debtor, as already noted in Para 14 above, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below -
"The alleged operational creditor has claimed alleged sum of Rs. 1,16,83,299/- (Rs. One Crore sixteen lacs eighty-three thousand three hundred ninety-nine), being principal claim of Rs. 99,77,449/- and adjustment in unit T5-1204 of Rs.17,05,850/- along with interest claim of Rs 83,62,660/- (Total Rs.1,96,25,505/-) whereas the corporate debtor in its reply dated 28.05.2018 to the demand notice admitted due amount of Rs. 8,01,776/- and offered to pay during hearing which was not accepted by the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor had earlier offered to pay a sum of Rs.8,01,776/- (admitted amount) through Demand Draft already purchased vide dated 17.01.2020 No. 218524 drawn on HDFC Bank, branch Sector 18, Noida for Rs.8,00,000/-. That during the earlier hearings the debtor had offered to pay but not accepted by the operational creditor. The copy of Demand Draft is attached with submissions (Annexure A/2). The disputed amount will be adjudicated by the Civil Court as the same is denied and prima-facie evident from records and submissions hereinafter."
Not only the above, the Corporate Debtor has also placed at Annexure A/2 of the its Written Arguments, a true copy of the Demand Draft No. 218524 dated 17.01.2020 drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Sector 18, Noida for Rs.8,00,000/- towards the amount as admitted in the reply to demand notice, scanned copy of which is reproduced overleaf -
The aforesaid averment in its Written Arguments dated 19.01.2020 supplemented with the attached documentary proof in terms of the Demand Draft No. 218524 dated 17.01.2020 drawn on HDFC Bank, Noida for Rs.8,00,000/- towards the amount that was admitted at the stage of and in the Reply to the Demand Notice depicts a clear admission of debt on the part of the Corporate Debtor. Even for a moment, it is assumed that there is a pre-existing dispute regarding the quantum of debt between the parties, then also the admitted amount of claim (for which there are no traces of the pre-existing dispute) is more than Rs 1,00,000/-, which is sufficient to initiate CIR Process against the Corporate Debtor.
In the context, we are further strengthened by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. – (2018) 1 SCC 407", whereby it is held that :
"The scheme of the Code is to ensure that when a default takes place, in the sense that a debt becomes due and is not paid, the insolvency resolution process begins. Default is defined in Section 3(12) in very wide terms as meaning non-payment of a debt once it becomes due and payable, which includes non-payment of even part thereof or an installment amount. For the meaning of “debt”, we have to go to Section 3(11), which in turn tells us that a debt means a liability of obligation in respect of a “claim” and for the meaning of “claim”, we have to go back to Section 3(6) which defines “claim” to mean a right to payment even if it is disputed. The Code gets triggered the moment default is of rupees one lakh or more (Section 4). The corporate insolvency resolution process may be triggered by the corporate debtor itself or a financial creditor or operational creditor. The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In sequel to the above, we conclude that the claim of the Operational Creditor is not barred by Limitation and there is no genuine dispute between the parties. Hence, we are inclined to admit the present Application.
In sequel to the above, the Operational Creditor has succeeded in establishing the default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in making payment of the Operational Debt. The Application filed under Section 9 fulfills all the requirements of law. Therefore, the present Application is admitted in terms of Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016. Accordingly, the CIRP is initiated and ‘moratorium’ is declared in terms of provisions of Section 14 of the Code. As a necessary consequence of declaration of the moratorium in terms of Section 14(1) (a), (b), (c) & (d), the following prohibitions are imposed, which must be followed by all and sundry :
The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor, where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
The I.A. 1556/ND/2019 has already been allowed whereby the Applicant has proposed the name of Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal IP to be appointed as an IRP. Accordingly, this Bench appoints Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal IP (mittalanil.ubi@gmail.com) having registration no. IBBI/ IPA-002/IP-N00742/2018-2019/12263 with address at 5/99, Sector-2, Rajendra Nagar Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, 201005, Uttar Pradesh as IRP of the corporate debtor, subject to the condition that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. The specific consent of the IP in Form 2 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rule, 2016 and disclosures as required under IBBI (insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 are on record. This Bench, therefore directs Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal IP (mittalanil.ubi@gmail.com) having registration no. IBBI/ IPA-002/IP-N00742/2018-2019/12263 to take charge of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor with immediate effect.
The Operational Creditor is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- (One Lakh) only with the IRP, namely Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal to meet out the expenses and perform the functions as assigned to him in accordance with Regulation 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016. The needful shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of this Order by the Applicant. This amount, however, will be subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors, as accounted for by the Interim Resolution Professional and shall be paid back to the Operational Creditor.
A copy of this Order shall be communicated by the Registry/ Court Officer immediately by all modes to the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the IRP named above. In addition, a copy of the Order shall also be forwarded by the Registry/Court Officer to IBBI and ROC concerned for their records.