AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
C.P. (IB)/67(MB)2024: The above CP is listed for pronouncement of the order. The same is pronounced in open court, vide a separate order.
This Petition has been filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 (“IBC”) read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by Prudent ARC Limited, (‘Petitioner/Financial Creditor’) seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s Abhinandan Rasayan Private Ltd (‘Corporate Debtor’) for a Financial Debt of Rs.3,18,41,102.58/- (RupeesThree crore eighteen lakh forty one thousand one hundred two only) (“the said debt”)
Facts & Submissions of the Financial Creditor
The Petitioner submits that it is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and registered as an Asset Reconstruction Company.
A Memorandum of Understanding dated 18th March 2018 ("MOU"), was entered into between Corporate Debtor and M/s. Lasa Supergenerics Limited(“Lasa”).The Petitioner submits that on 31 March 2018, Lasa executed a loan agreement with Dombivali Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. (“Assignor Bank”).A composite deed of hypothecation was also executed by Lasa in favour of the Assignor Bank. Further, a promissory note for anamount of Rs. 1,82,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Eighty-Two Lakhs Only) was signed by Lasa, Mr. Omkar Pravin Harlekar and Mr. Sumant Madhusudan Kharasambale in favour of the Assignor Bank.Among other facilities, the transaction included a specific loan of Rs. 1,82,00,000 relevant to the present matter. The said loan amount was disbursed on 31.03.2018.
This loan was secured through requisite documents executed by Lasa. Lasa later defaulted on repayment but contended that the liability to repay lay with the Corporate Debtor, not Lasa.
As Lasa disputed the default, it filed Commercial Suit No. 1225 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, seeking interim and final reliefs, including a declaration that it was not liable for the said amount. The Assignor Bank and the Corporate Debtor were also impleaded, and reliefs were sought against them.Meanwhile, Lasa’s account with the Assignor Bank was classified as NPA on 31 January 2019. The Assignor Bank thereafter assigned the debt, including the amount in dispute, to the present Financial Creditor under an assignment deed dated 30 March 2019.
To resolve the ongoing disputes in Commercial Suit No. 1225 of 2018, all parties—Lasa (plaintiff in this suit), the Assignor Bank, the Corporate Debtor, and the present Applicant/ Petitioner—were joined in the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court through its order dated 01.03.2021 held that there will be a decree in terms of the Consent terms which is taken on record. Under the Consent Terms dated 01.03.2021 following terms are provided:
(a)The MoU dated 18.03.2018 is cancelled.
(b)The Corporate Debtor shall take over and repay the entire ₹1.82 crore loan, including interest, costs and charges.
(c)The liability shall be transferred to the Corporate Debtor’s loan account and thereafter offered for assignment to the ARC.
(d)The Corporate Debtor shall execute all required documents— Acknowledgement of Debt, DPN, Loan Agreement, Hypothecation Deed—and bear all related charges.
(e)The Corporate Debtor undertakes to repay the loan as per the original sanction terms.
(f)Upon compliance, the Bank shall issue a No Dues Certificate to Lasa and release it and its guarantor from all liability; ROC charges shall be shifted from Lasa to the Corporate Debtor.
(g)Both parties waive all present and future claims against each other relating to the said loan.
(h)The Bank shall return Lasa’s original title deeds.
(i)The suit shall stand withdrawn upon filing of these consent terms.
In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the loan which was provisionally due and payable by Lasa was cancelled and a fresh loan account was entered in the name of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor agreed to pay the liability which was earlier due and payable by Lasa and in order to implement the understanding as arrived before the Hon'ble High Court, a fresh Loan Agreement was executed on 19 March 2021 between the Assignor Bank and the Corporate Debtor. Through the execution of the fresh loan Agreement along with other documents, the total liability was crystallised at Rs. 2.40 Crores (plus 10% tax). There were further documents executed, i.e. Deed of Guarantee, Deed of Hypothecation and Demand Promissory Note, on the same date. Moreover, the Corporate Debtor through its Board Resolution dated 17.03.2021 has mentioned to undertake its liability to pay the term loan of Rs. 1.80 Crore. As the debt of Lasa was originally assigned to the Petitioner, this debt was also offered to be assigned to the Petitioner and accordingly on 8th July 2021, by way of a fresh Deed of Assignment, the debt came to be assigned in favour of the Applicant/Petitioner herein.
In these circumstances, the loan is now due and payable by the Corporate Debtor which is duly assigned to the Petitioner and this transaction is executed in terms of the settlement terms arrived between the parties before the Hon'ble High Court.
The date of default as stated in the petition is30.11.2023. This date of default is arrived on the basis of the date of Non-Performing Asset (NPA) being 31.01.2019.These two dates are taken from the records and as per the default records maintained by the Assignor Bank. Originally, the loan as set out hereinabove was declared as NPA by the Assignor Bank when the loan was due and payable by Lasa. This loan was thereafter converted to be the loan due and payable by the present Corporate Debtor pursuant to the Consent Terms arrived before the Hon'ble High Court on 1 March 2021 ("Consent Terms").
The loan was further confirmed through documents executed on 19 March 2021. However, since the original default occurred when the loan was payable by Lasa, the Petitioner has consistently maintained the original default date as per record. The Petitioner submits that the loan was taken over under the Consent Terms dated 1 March 2021 and the documents executed on 19 March 2021. Accordingly, even if 31 October 2018 is not considered, the loan became immediately payable on 19 March 2021, and failure to pay would render 19 March 2021 the date of default.These default dates are based on the original records and the treatment in the Assignor Bank’s books. Paragraph 4 of the Consent Terms filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court expressly states that the date of default and NPA classification remain unchanged.
The Applicant states that the claim is well within limitation. Even assuming the default date as 31 October 2018, the debt stands duly acknowledged through:
Consent Terms dated 1 March 2021, wherein the Corporate Debtor acknowledged and agreed to repay the debt;
Execution of the Demand Promissory Note and other documents on 19 March 2021;
Acknowledgements in the Corporate Debtor’s settlement proposal dated 29 April 2023, sanction of settlement dated 18 May 2023, and acknowledgement dated 29 February 2024;
Admissions of liability in the Corporate Debtor’s balance sheets for FY 2020–21, 2021–22, and 2022–23.
Further, the debt per say is acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor. There is no dispute that the debt has been assigned to the Petitioner.Furthermore the total amount outstanding including the interest payable as on 30.11.2023 is Rs.3,18,41,102.58/-
Submissions of the Corporate Debtor
The Corporate Debtor submits that the Financial Creditor’s attempt to invoke Section 7 of the IBC is misconceived, as neither a “financial debt” under Section 5(8) nor a subsisting “default” under Section 3(12) has been established. The Petition conflates unrelated transactions involving Lasa Supergenerics Ltd. (“Lasa”), the Assignor Bank, and the Corporate Debtor, without demonstrating how these create a direct and enforceable liability against the Corporate Debtor.
The MOU executed in March 2018 between the Corporate Debtor and Lasa governed prospective commercial arrangements that never materialized and was ultimately cancelled under consent terms recorded before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It did not impose unconditional liability upon the Corporate Debtor for loans sanctioned to Lasa.
The loan agreement dated 31 March 2018 for approx. Rs. 15 Crore was executed exclusively by Lasa and certain individuals. No document shows the Corporate Debtor as borrower or guarantor, nor any acceptance of primary liability. The Financial Creditor’s reliance on these records to assert the Corporate Debtor’s liability is misplaced.
Assignor Bank separately granted multiple financial facilities to the Corporate Debtor, some later classified as NPA. These are distinct from Lasa’s loan, with separate terms and obligations. The Financial Creditor improperly attempts to merge these independent facilities to build a composite claim under Section 7.
The Financial Creditor claims to have acquired Lasa’s and the Corporate Debtor’s loan accounts from Assignor Bank. However, Lasa had challenged the NPA classification and prospective assignment in Commercial Suit No. 1225 of 2018, where the Hon’ble High Court directed Assignor Bank not to take coercive steps. The subsequent settlement and consent terms dated 11 March 2021 cancelled the MOU and contemplated certain internal adjustments, but did not create any unconditional or standalone financial liability upon the Corporate Debtor.
Pursuant to the settlement, Assignor Bank opened a fresh account in the Corporate Debtor’s name on 19 March 2021 and immediately classified it as NPA, despite no fresh disbursal. This so-called “new account” merely reflected a reshuffling of disputed entries and cannot constitute a legally cognizable financial debt or default under the IBC.
The Financial Creditor’s acquisition of this “loan” of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-, derived from reclassified and disputed liabilities, does not establish a clear debt or date of default. No demand notice was issued, and the Corporate Debtor was not afforded an opportunity to cure any alleged default. Internal bank noting cannot substitute for a legally enforceable default under Section 3(12).
The Petition also fails to satisfy the limitation requirement. No definitive date of default has been identified, nor has any valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act been demonstrated. Merely labelling an account as NPA, or recreating new accounts, does not extend limitation.
The Financial Creditor seeks to use the IBC as a recovery mechanism, despite the existence of substantial and bona fide disputes concerning the validity, quantum, assignment, and enforceability of the alleged debt. The Corporate Debtor remains a going concern and is not in financial distress warranting CIRP.
The sums claimed, including Rs. 1,82,00,000/- and the inflated figure of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-, lack clear computation, proof of disbursement, or reconciliation. The Financial Creditor has not produced a coherent chain of documents establishing disbursal, agreement to repay, default, and lawful assignment as required for admission under Section 7.
Except where specifically admitted, all allegations in the Petition are denied. The Financial Creditor is put to strict proof regarding the existence of financial debt, enforceable liability, date of default, limitation, and validity of assignment. In the absence of such proof, the Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
The Corporate Debtor therefore prayed to dismiss the Petition as not maintainable, hold that no default stands established, award costs, and grant any other relief deemed appropriate.
Analysis & Findings
We have heard the Ld. Counsels of the parties and perused the documents available on record.
In order to address the issues raised following relevant and undisputed facts are noted :-
a. The MoU dated 18.03.2018 was executed between the Corporate Debtor and Lasa.
b. The Consent terms dated 1.03.2021 was executed between the Corporate Debtor, the Petitioner, the Assignor Bank and Lasa.
c. As per the Consent Terms, a fresh loan account of the Corporate Debtor was opened by the Assignor Bank on 19.03.2021 and loan agreement, Deed of Guarantee, Deed of Hypothecation and a Demand Promissory Note were executed by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Assignor Bank.
d. No payment has been made towards the said financial debt of Rs.3,18,41,102.58/- by the Corporate Debtor.
It is also pertinently noted that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, have in their order dated 01.03.2021, passed a decree stating :-
“Called for filing consent terms. Learned counsel state that the parties have arrived at a settlement. They tender consent terms signed by the parties and their Advocates. Signatories are identified by their respective Advocates. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
(i)There will be a decree in terms of the consent terms which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.
(ii)Undertakings are accepted.
(iii)In view of the disposal of the Suit Interim Applications do not survive. Interim Applications are also disposed.
(iv)Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
(v)Refund of Court fees if any, as per rules”
The terms of the said Consent terms which is entered between the Petitioner (i.e defendant no.4 in the suit), the Corporate Debtor (i.e defendant no.2 in the suit), the Assignor Bank (i.e the defendant no.1 in the suit) and Lasa (i.e the Plaintiff in the suit) are:
"5(a) The Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 agree and confirm that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18th March 2018 (Exhibit A to the Plaint) executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2, through Defendant No.3, is cancelled.
(b)The Defendant No.2 shall take back the entire loan liability of Rs. 1.82 Crores disbursed by the Defendant No.1 in the name of the Plaintiff along with interest. costs and charges debited to the said loan account (in the present consent terms, the said principal amount, interest, costs, charges etc are together referred to as the "said loan" or "said loan of 1.82 crore").
(c)The liability of the said loan shall be taken back by the Defendant No.2 whereby the liability of Defendant No. 2 towards the Defendant No.1 Bank will increase to the extent in the books of Defendant No.1 Bank. Thereafter the said loan will be offered for sale to Proforma Defendant No.4, in the name of Defendant No. 2 in terms of provision of Securitization Act 2002 and the Securitization Companies and Reconstruction Companies (Reserve Bank) Guidelines and Directions 2003 and subject to the appropriate order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Suit No. 1225 of 2018. A copy of the letter dated 27th August 2020 of the proforma Defendant No.4 is annexed hereto and Annexure -1.
(d)The Defendant No.2 shall sign Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt. Demand promissory Note, Loan Agreement, Hypothecation Deed and any other document as specified by Defendant No.1 for taking over the liability of the said loan. The stamp duty and other charges payable on the said documents including Hypothecation Deed shall be borne by Defendant No.2. the same is also confirmed on oath by Defendant No.2 vide its Affidavit and Board Resolution both dated 6th November 2020 duly filed with the Registrar of Companies in Form MGT-14.
(e)The Defendant No. 2 further undertakes to repay the loan along with interest, costs and charges to the Defendant No.1 as per the original terms of sanction of the said loan.
(f)The Defendant No.1 agrees that after compliance of the aforesaid terms, loan of the Plaintiff will be taken back by the Defendant No.2 by execution of necessary loan and security documents in favour of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 shall issue "No Dues Certificate" in respect of the said loan to the Plaintiff and discharge the Plaintiff and its guarantor, Mr. Omkar Herlekar from all the liabilities of the said loan subject to the NOC for taking back assets in the books of Defendant No.2 purchased by the Plaintiff from Defendant No.2 in terms of the MOU upon taking back the loan of Rs. 1.82 crores.
g)Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 shall mark as satisfied/remove the charge on machineries registered in the name of the Plaintiff with the Registrar of Companies and after the aforesaid loan is taken back by the Defendant No.2 by execution necessary loan and security documents, including hypothecation deed, the hypothecation charge shall be registered with the Registrar of Companies in the name of the Defendant No.2.
(h)The Plaintiff confirm that after receipt of 'No dues Certificate' from the Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff or its guarantor shall have no claim of whatsoever nature against Defendant No.1 in respect of sanction, disbursement, recovery and any other matter connected with the said loan of 1.82 crores granted by the Defendant No.1 in the name of the Plaintiff or in respect of sale of the said loan to an asset reconstruction company.
(i)The Defendant No.1 confirms that after providing 'No Dues Certificate' to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 shall have no claim of whatsoever nature against the Plaintiff in respect of sanction and disbursement, recovery and any other matter connected with the sad loan of 1.82 crore in the name of the Plaintiff.
(j)The Plaintiff further confirms that neither the Plaintiff nor its guarantor shall raise or prosecute any dispute or grievance before a Court/authority against the Defendant Nos, 1,2 & 3 claiming damaged, losses, costs, compensations, reimbursements or whatsoever nature in respect to sanction, disbursement, recovery and assignment or anything connected with the said loan of Rs. 1 82 crore. The Plaintiff shall also withdraw all criminal complaints made by it or its officers against the Defendant Nos. 1 and/or its officers.
(k)The Defendant No. 1,2 & 3 further confirms that neither the Defendant Nos. 1,2 7 3 nor their respective representatives shall raise or prosecute any dispute or grievance before any Court/police/any other authority against the Plaintiff claiming any damages, losses, costs, compensations, reimbursements or whatsoever nature in respect to sanction, disbursement, recovery and assignment or anything connected with the said loan of Rs. 1.82 crore.
(D)After filing these consent terms in the Hon'ble High Court, the Defendant No.1 Bank shall handover the original title deeds in respect of the immovable property of the Plaintiff viz. Plot No. b-15, B-16, MIDC Lote Parshuram, off Mumbai-Goa Highway, Khed. Dist. Ratnagiri to the Plaintiff. A list of the said original documents is annexed hereto as Annexure-2
(m)The present suit proceedings shall stand withdrawn by the Plaintiff on filing of this consent terms, subject to compliance by all parties."
[Emphasis Supplied]
This decree passed in terms of the said consent terms, clearly establishes the liability of the Corporate Debtor to repay the debt. Further, as far as the question of decree holder being considered as financial debtor, is concerned, it is necessary to read the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank vs C. Shivkumar Reddy and Anr, Civil Appeal no.1650 of 2020” :-
130.In effect, this Court speaking through Nariman J., approved the proposition that an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC may be time barred, even though some other recovery proceedings might have been instituted earlier, well within the period of limitation, in respect of the same debt. However, it would have been a different matter, if the applicant had approached the Adjudicating Authority after obtaining a final order asnd/or decree in the recovery proceedings, if the decree remained unsatisfied. This Court held that a decree and/or final adjudication would give rise to a fresh period of limitation for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
131.It is true that the finding of Patna High Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited v. Rajhans Steel Limited (supra) was rendered in the context of Section 434(1)(b) of the Companies Act 1956, which provided that a company would be deemed to be unable to pay its debts if execution or other process issued on a decree or order of any Court or Tribunal in favour of a creditor of the company was returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.
132.We see no reason why the principles should not apply to an application under Section 7 of the IBC which enables a financial creditor to file an application initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority, when a default has occurred. As observed earlier in this judgment, on a conjoint reading of the provisions of the IBC quoted above, it is clear that a final judgment and/or decree of any Court or Tribunal or any Arbitral Award for payment of money, if not satisfied, would fall within the ambit of a financial debt, enabling the creditor to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Moreover, the above judgement was further upheld in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Balakrishnan and Anr, Civil Appeal no.689 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :
“52.In any case, we have already discussed hereinabove that the trigger point for initiation of CIRP is default of claim. “Default” is non-payment of debt by the debtor or the Corporate Debtor, which has become due and payable, as the case may be, a “debt” is a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person, and a “claim” means a right to payment, whether such a right is reduced to judgment or not. It could thus be seen that unless there is a “claim”, which may or may not be reduced to any judgment, there would be no “debt” and consequently no “default” on non-payment of such a “debt”. When the “claim” itself means a right to payment, whether such a right is reduced to a judgment or not, we find that if the contention of the respondents, that merely on a “claim” being fructified in a decree, the same would be outside the ambit of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC, is accepted, then it would be inconsistent with the plain language used in the IBC. As already discussed hereinabove, the definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Taking into consideration the object and purpose of the IBC, the legislature could never have intended to keep a debt, which is crystallized in the form of a decree, outside the ambit of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner against the Corporate Debtor is clearly established through the decree passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in terms of the following :
the Consent Terms dated 01.03.2021;
execution of loan documents on 19.03.2021;
settlement proposals and acknowledgements dated 29.04.2023, 18.05.2023 and 29.02.2024; and
balance sheets for FY 2020–21 to 2022–23.
Thus the Petitioner’s claim arises from the loan disbursed to the Corporate Debtor and subsequently acknowledged by it through the Consent Terms dated 01.03.2021 and the execution of fresh loan documents crystallising liability at ₹2.40 crore. The debt was thereafter lawfully assigned to the Petitioner under the Assignment Agreement dated 08.07.2021.
The Corporate Debtor’s contention that it was neither borrower nor guarantor is contradicted by the Consent Terms, wherein it expressly accepted that ₹1.82 crore had been credited to its account and undertook to repay the entire liability with interest, costs and charges as per the original sanction terms. Having fully taken over liability under a binding settlement, the Corporate Debtor cannot now deny it. The acknowledged amount of debt exceeds the threshold of ₹1 crore under Section 4 of the IBC.
Also, the Corporate Debtor’s challenge to the NPA classification of the account opened on 19.03.2021 is untenable. Clause 4 of the Consent Terms itself records that the account would be treated as NPA in line with RBI guidelines and would be offered for assignment. The Corporate Debtor was fully aware of this treatment. Further, the objection to the legality of assignment is without merit. The Assignment Agreement dated 08.07.2021 clearly records transfer of the Corporate Debtor’s loan account to the Petitioner pursuant to the settlement in Commercial Suit No. 1225 of 2018. The assignment is duly executed and supported by documentary evidence. In respect of the Corporate Debtor’s dispute receipt of any formal demand notice, it is stated that issue of demand notice is not prerequisite in case of petition filed under section 7 of IBC.
As regards Limitation, it is observed that in view of the above judgement in Dena Bank vs C. Shivkumar Reddy and Anr. (2021), the decree passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 01.03.2021 shall give rise to a fresh period of limitation for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Thus 3 years from 01.03.2021 shall end on 01.03.2024 whereas the application is filed on 19.12.2023. Hence, the application is filed within limitation period.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank and Another (2018)1 SCC 407, have held that-
“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 receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority.
30.On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case of a corporate debtor who commits a default of a financial debt, the adjudicating authority has merely to see the records of the information utility or other evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise.”
(Emphasis Provided)
In view of the aforementioned judgement it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority only has to determine whether the “debt” was due and remained unpaid. If the adjudicating authority is of the opinion that a “default” has occurred, it has to admit the application. In the present case, sufficient evidence has been adduced by the Petitioner to prove the debt and default.
In view of the facts of the case and discussion here in above, We are of the considered view that the Financial Creditors have proved existence of debt and default. Further the debt is in excess of Rs. 1 Crore and thus above the threshold limit mandated in Section 4(1) of the Code. Also, the Petition filed is within limitation. Therefore, this company petition is admitted in terms of following order:
Order
a. The above Company Petition (IB) 67(MB)/2024 is admitted and initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is ordered against M/s Abhinandan Rasayan Private Ltd.
b. In view of the consent given by the Insolvency Professional, we hereby appoint Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal, having Registration No:-IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00742/2018-2019/12263, e-mail: [email protected]; Address: 5/99, Sector- 2, Raj ender Nagar, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005, as the Interim Resolution Professional to carry out the functions as mentioned under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
c. The Financial Creditor shall deposit an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-towards the initial CIRP cost by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Interim Resolution Professional appointed herein, immediately upon communication of this Order.
d. That this Bench hereby directs operation of moratorium under section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and prohibits the following:
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 Securitization 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.
e. That the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.
f. That the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.
g. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of pronouncement of this order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub- section (1) of section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33, as the case may be.
h. That the public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of the Code.
During the CIRP period, the management of the corporate debtor will vest in the IRP/RP. The suspended directors and employees of the Corporate Debtor shall provide all documents in their possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP/RP.
Registry shall send a copy of this order to the concerned Registrar of Companies for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor.
The Registry is hereby directed to communicate this order to both the parties and to IRP immediately. The Registry is further directed to send a copy of this order to the Insolvency and bankruptcy Board of India for their record.