AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER Siddharth Mishra, Member (Technical):
The Court congregated through hybrid mode.
Heard the Learned Counsels for both the parties.
Factual matrix:
The instant company petition has been filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, for brevity I&B Code, read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, by “Punjab and Sinh Bank”, hereinafter referred to as “Financial Creditor”/ “Applicant” against “Diksha Greens Limited”, hereinafter referred to as “Corporate Debtor”/ “Respondent” seeking direction to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for brevity “CIRP”) in respect of the Corporate Debtor.
The Corporate Debtor had applied for various credit facilities from the Financial Creditor, including Cash Credit Limits, Letters of Credit (Inland/FLC), Bill Discounting (BC) Limits, Bank Guarantee, and Term Loan Facilities. Pursuant to such request made on 14.03.2018, the Financial Creditor, after assessing the financial profile of the Corporate Debtor, sanctioned the aforementioned credit facilities aggregating to ₹22.45 Crores.
This sanction included a Cash Credit Limit of ₹6.00 Crores, LC (Inland/FLC)/BC Limit of ₹11.00 Crores, Bank Guarantee of ₹0.20 Lakhs, and Term Loan of ₹5.25 Crores, as per Sanction No. GM(A) Resolution No. 926 dated 23.01.2018. These facilities were secured by personal guarantees, hypothecation of primary securities, and an equitable mortgage of immovable properties.
The Corporate Debtor duly availed and utilized the sanctioned facilities; however, it failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction and did not regularize the outstanding dues despite repeated demands and reminders issued by the Financial Creditor. Consequently, the loan accounts of the Corporate Debtor turned irregular and classified as non-performing due to the Corporate Debtor’s failure to service interest and/or installment obligations. The default in repayment began from 22.02.2019, marking the date of default under the Code.
Following the occurrence of default, the Financial Creditor issued a formal Demand Notice dated 12.10.2020 through its learned counsel, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to repay the outstanding dues amounting to ₹28,40,74,550.30, inclusive of interest calculated up to 30.09.2020, and further contractual interest from 01.10.2020 till realization. Despite the said demand notice, the Corporate Debtor failed and neglected to make any payment or propose any viable settlement, resulting in continued accrual of liability.
As on 30.09.2024, the total outstanding claim of the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor stood at ₹46,90,75,470.23, along with further interest from 01.10.2024 till the date of actual payment.
The liability is duly reflected in the Corporate Debtor’s audited financial statements filed with the Registrar of Companies for the Financial Years ending 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2023, wherein the said loan liabilities have been acknowledged as outstanding. Such acknowledgements in the balance sheet amount to valid acknowledgements of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for initiating recovery proceedings.
Submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant:
The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Financial Creditor sanctioned loans totalling Rs. 22.45 Crores to the Corporate Debtor, secured by personal guarantees, hypothecation, and mortgage. Facilities included a Cash Credit of Rs. 6.00 Crores, LC/BC of Rs. 11.00 Crores, BG of Rs. 0.20 Lacs, and a Term Loan of Rs. 5.25 Crores, as per Sanction Letter dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure '1-E') and Loan Application dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure '1-D').
It is contended that the Corporate Debtor executed various loan documents on 14.03.2018 to secure credit facilities totalling Rs. 22.45 Crores, including promissory notes, hypothecation, and declarations. An equitable mortgage was created by depositing title deeds of immovable properties in favor of Punjab & Sind Bank. As of 30.09.2024, the outstanding dues total Rs. 46.90 Crores, with interest accruing thereafter.
It is claimed that the corporate debtor defaulted on loan repayments, leading to the account being declared NPA on 22.02.2019. Despite repeated demands, no payments were made. The financial creditor issued a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 03.06.2019 (Annexure 2-A), followed by a possession notice on 27.08.2019 (Annexure 2-B) and publication in "Aajkal" and "Financial Express" (Annexure 2-C).
It is further submitted that as of 30.09.2024, Rs. 46.90 Crores is due from the Corporate Debtor, including interest from 01.10.2024. The account was declared NPA on 22.02.2019 with dues of Rs. 24.16 Crores. A demand notice for Rs. 28.40 Crores as on 30.09.2020 was issued on 12.10.2020 Annexure 2-E, but the debtor failed to repay. Statement of Accounts is annexed as Annexure 2-D.
It is claimed that despite repeated demands, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay its dues. As of 30.09.2024, Rs. 46.90 Crores is payable along with interest from 01.10.2024 till realization. The Financial Creditor is entitled to recover this amount.
The Financial Creditor is also entitled to interest at CC @10.90% and TL @9.30% p.a. from 01.10.2020 till realization. An Original Application (OA No. 195/2020) was filed before DRT-I, Kolkata. Sale notices were issued; the Corporate Debtor challenged them vide SA No. 61/2022, which is pending.
Balance sheets for FY 2020–21 and 2022–23, filed with ROC, acknowledge the debt, constituting valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Annexures 2-F to 2-H).
The Hypothecation and mortgage charges were registered with ROC, as per the ROC Search Report (2021–2023) (Annexures 2-H & 2-I). After all adjustments, Rs.46.90 Cr is due as on 30.09.2024, with further interest from 01.10.2024.
The Default occurred on 22.02.2019 and was reaffirmed by the debtor’s SARFAESI filing in 2022 and balance sheet admissions.
Per contra the respondent would submits as follows:
That the petition is misconceived and not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed.
It is claimed that in the course of its business operations and due to working capital requirements, the corporate debtor, through its promoter/director, approached the International Banking Division of the financial creditor for credit facilities. After evaluating the financial viability and business performance, the bank sanctioned credit limits in March 2010. The loan accounts were maintained with financial discipline, leading to an enhancement of credit facilities on 23.01.2018 to a total of Rs. 22.45 Crores. A copy of the sanction letter dated 23.01.2018 is annexed as “Letter A”.
It is contended that the corporate debtor regularly repaid its loans. On 09.12.2018, a fire at its Baidyabati factory destroyed stock worth Rs. 146.2 crore and damaged machinery. The incident was promptly reported to the financial creditor (Letter "B") and the insurer, but the claim was later denied. A forensic report dated 14.03.2019 (Letter "C") identified an electrical fault as the cause. The corporate debtor remained in contact with the financial creditor, who initiated a restructuring process, including a TEV study by DKB Associates.
It is submitted the corporate debtor deposited ₹132.00 lakhs as upfront contribution per the draft restructuring sanction letter. Despite this, the financial creditor arbitrarily classified the account as NPA on 22.02.2019, violating agreed terms. The debtor was not informed of a ₹12.00 crore disbursement on 28.02.2019 or its closure on 29.05.2019. As per the draft terms, the WCTL was to be repaid in 84 EMIs of ₹14.28 lakhs starting 31.03.2020, with a one-year moratorium and monthly interest payments.
The financial creditor’s unilateral closure of the WCTL account on 29.05.2019, despite the corporate debtor depositing ₹132.00 lakhs as required, was contrary to the draft restructuring terms and showed malafide intent. The NPA classification on 22.02.2019 and the Section 13(2) SARFAESI notice dated 03.06.2019 demanding ₹24.16 crore were arbitrary and illegal, especially since a TEV report supported restructuring, and the debtor complied with all conditions. The account should have been treated as restructured and performing, making the NPA classification unjustified and against RBI norms.
That the corporate debtor deposited ₹132.00 lakhs as required under the draft restructuring letter dated 28.02.2019, yet the account was wrongly classified as NPA on 22.02.2019. The financial creditor ignored its own restructuring terms and prematurely issued a SARFAESI 13(2) notice on 03.06.2019, which is illegal and unjustified. A ₹12 crore credit on 28.02.2019 reduced the outstanding to ₹5.84 crore, confirming the account was regular. Premature closure of the WCTL and misstatement of a bank guarantee of ₹17.25 lakhs already released by WBSEDCL further render the 13(2) notice unsustainable in law.
That the corporate debtor deposited ₹132.00 lakhs as required under the restructuring proposal dated 28.02.2019, which granted a moratorium and revised repayment terms. Despite this, the financial creditor arbitrarily classified the account as NPA on 22.02.2019 and issued a defective 13(2) notice under SARFAESI, falsely alleging dues, including a released bank guarantee. The notice lacks required particulars and violates Sections 13(2), 13(3), and 13(3A) of the Act. A valid objection was submitted on 14.08.2019, but the creditor’s reply was evasive. Still, possession notice was issued, leading to S.A. No. 61 of 2022 before DRT-I, Kolkata.
It is further submitted that the bank waived the NPA classification dated 22.02.2019 by issuing a draft restructuring sanction on 28.02.2019 and accepting ₹32 lakhs. No debt or default exists, and the alleged claim of ₹46.90 crores is baseless. The financial creditor failed to show valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The application is time-barred, lacks proof of default, and is a misuse of legal process. It deserves dismissal with costs under Section 65 of the IBC, 2016.
We have noted and duly considered the rival contentions made by the Learned Counsels.
Analysis and Findings
It is evident that the Financial Creditor extended various credit facilities aggregating to Rs. 22.45 Crores to the Corporate Debtor, which were secured by way of personal guarantees, hypothecation of movable assets, and equitable mortgage of immovable properties.
The debt alleged to be due is 24.16 cr. Of the total outstanding, admitted by the repayment as in February 2019 is 1.32 cr.
The WCTL had to be repaid in 84 EMI’s of Rs. 14.28 Lakhs starting from 31.3.2020 with a moratorium of 1 year.
The account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 22.02.2019, in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines. The Financial Creditor has annexed documentary evidence including the sanction letter, loan application, hypothecation and mortgage documents, the statement of account certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, SARFAESI notices, and publications substantiating the default and subsequent recovery actions.
The Financial Creditor has also placed on record the issuance of a demand notice dated 12.10.2020 under which the Corporate Debtor was called upon to pay the outstanding dues, which as of 30.09.2020 stood at Rs. 28.40 Crores, with the dues increasing to Rs. 46.90 Crores as on 30.09.2024, inclusive of interest. No payment has been made by the Corporate Debtor till date.
It is further noted that the Corporate Debtor has, in its balance sheets for the financial years ending 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2023, acknowledged the debt, which constitutes a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The ROC Search Report and other annexed documents further confirm the existence and continuity of the debt and the security interest.
In this regard, we would further like to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth and Another v. Chandra Prakash Jain and Another Reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 843 , wherein it was held that:
“23.It is no more res integra that Section 18 of the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Section 7 of the Code. In case the application under Section 7 is filed beyond the period of three years from the date of default and the financial creditor furnishes the required information relating to the acknowledgement of debt, in writing by the corporate debtor, before the Adjudicating Authority, with such acknowledgement having taken place within the initial period of three years from the date of default, a fresh period of limitation commences and the application can be entertained, if filed within this extended period.”
In light of the above-mentioned judgment as well as the aforementioned facts, this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the instant petition, having been filed on 11.03.2019, is well within the limitation period.
The pendency of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and under the SARFAESI Act do not bar the Financial Creditor from initiating proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, in this regard, it is to be noted that the proceedings under the Code are not merely recovery proceedings, rather they aim at revival of the Corporate Debtor from insolvency. As such, the pendency of recovery proceedings under a different forum will not be a bar to the initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Code.
In regard to the initiation of CIRP in case of section 7 petitions, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. Reported in MANU/SC/1063/2017 wherein it was held that:
“28.…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. Under Sub-section (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate the order passed to the financial creditor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be.”
The Apex Court, in the matter of Innoventive (supra), further held that:
“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 Added)
The Financial Creditor has submitted comprehensive documentation evidencing sanction of credit facilities on 23.01.2018, execution of security documents including hypothecation, mortgage, and personal guarantees, and the declaration of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 22.02.2019. Notices under Section 13(2) and possession notices under the SARFAESI Act have been duly placed on record, along with proof of publication in newspapers.
The primary defence raised by the Corporate Debtor pertains to the allegedly arbitrary classification of the loan account as NPA, despite a fire incident that purportedly disrupted operations, followed by discussions around a restructuring proposal. The Corporate Debtor claims that it had deposited ₹132.00 lakhs as an upfront amount under a draft restructuring proposal, and that a Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL) of ₹12.00 Crores was disbursed and adjusted, thereby regularizing the account.
The Adjudicating Authority is not required to enter into disputed questions of fact or allegations of malafide where a financial debt and default are established on the record. The definition of “default” under Section 3(12) of the IBC is unambiguous and refers to non-payment of debt when due and payable. The material before us, including the Statement of Accounts, SARFAESI notices, and ROC records, support the claim of default.
The Financial Creditor has placed reliance on the balance sheets of the Corporate Debtor for FY 2020–21 and 2022–23, which record the outstanding liability. These constitute valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, thereby extending the limitation period.
The contention of the Corporate Debtor that the Financial Creditor waived the NPA classification lacks merit. The restructuring proposal dated 28.02.2019 was only a draft and there is no evidence of a concluded agreement or sanction. The Financial Creditor’s internal communications and draft restructuring terms do not override the classification made on 22.02.2019, especially in absence of any formal approval of restructuring by the competent sanctioning authority.
The Corporate Debtor has not disputed that credit facilities were availed and security documents executed. Even assuming the fire incident disrupted operations, this does not exonerate the Corporate Debtor from its repayment obligations. Insurance denial does not extinguish the debt. It is also not within the scope of this Tribunal to adjudicate on the legality or validity of the SARFAESI proceedings; those are already sub judice before DRT-I, Kolkata.
The Corporate Debtor’s assertion that no debt is due is contradicted by its own financial disclosures and absence of any evidence of repayment post-NPA declaration. The account remained classified as NPA as of the petition date, and the Corporate Debtor has failed to demonstrate that any part of the alleged debt was discharged or that the claim is without merit.
The present petition made by the Financial Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. The Petition and the submissions establish that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable and that the default is more than the minimum amount stipulated under section 4 (1) of the Code, stipulated at the relevant point of time.
Once the “debt’ and “default” is admitted or established the petition must be admitted.
We are supported by the views of Hon’ble Apex Court to define “Financial Debt” and to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution process as under:
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2019) 8 SCC 416:
“any debt to be treated as financial debt, there must happen disbursal of money to the borrower for utilization by the borrower and that the disbursal must be against consideration for time value of money.”
(Emphasis added)
Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Ltd. v. Axis Bank Limited reported in (2020) 8 SCC 401:
“the essential condition of financial debt is disbursement against the consideration for time value of money.”
(Emphasis added)
Indus Biotech Private Limited v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund reported in (2021) 6 SCC 436: MANU/SC/0231/2021 (para 14) that:
“14.… in order to trigger an application, there should be in existence four factors: (i) there should be a 'debt' (ii) 'default' should have occurred (iii) debt should be due to 'financial creditor' and (iv) such default which has occurred should be by a 'corporate debtor…”
(Emphasis added)
Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank reported in (2018) 1 SCC 407: MANU/SC/1063/2017 has laid down that:
“27.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. ...’
“28.… the corporate debtor is entitled to point out that a default has not occurred in the sense that the "debt", which may also include a disputed claim, is not due. A debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact. The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, ...” xxx xxx xxx xxx
“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 added)
In terms of the foregoing discussion, we ALLOW the application bearing Company Petition (IB) No. 351/KB/2024 filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code, and accordingly, we order the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIR Process) in respect of the Corporate Debtor by the following Orders:
The Application filed by Punjab and Sinh Bank (Financial Creditors), under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is hereby, ADMITTED for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of M/s. Diksha Green Ltd (Corporate Debtor).
As a consequence of this Application being admitted in terms of Section 7 of the I&B Code, moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Code, shall follow in relation to the Respondent/(CD) as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 14(1) of the Code. However, during the pendency of the moratorium period, terms of Section 14(2) to 14(3) of the Code shall come into force.
Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the following, as:
a)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;
b)Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its asset or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
c)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 (54 of 2002);
d)The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in possession of the Corporate Debtor.
[Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;]
The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period.
The provisions of sub-section (1) of the Section 14 shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.
The Applicant has proposed the name of “Pankaj Khaitan”, Address: K-37/A, Basement Kailash, Colony Metro Station, Delhi- 110048 , Registration no. IBBI/IPA-002-IP-N00010/2016-17/10014, Email id [email protected] , as the “IRP”. We have perused that there is a written communication and consent of IRP in Form 2 with Affidavit, annexed as letter 1-C-1 to the petition, as per the requirement of Rule 9(l) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. There is a declaration made by him that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against him with the Board or IIIP of ICAI. In addition, further necessary disclosures have been made by “Pankaj Khaitan” as per the requirement of the IBBI Regulations. Accordingly, he satisfies the requirement of Section 7(3)(b) of the code. Hence, we appoint ‘Pankaj Khaitan” as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor to carry out the functions as per the I&B Code subject to submission of a valid Authorisation of Assignment in terms of regulation 7A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016. The fee payable to IRP or the RP, as the case may be, shall be compliant with such Regulations, Circulars and Directions as may be issued by the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The IRP shall carry out his functions as contemplated by sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the I&B Code. vii. In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of the Code, we direct the IRP or the RP, as the case shall cause a public announcement immediately with regard to the admission of this application under Section 7 of the Code and call for the submission of claims under Section 15 of the Code. The public announcement referred to in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, shall be made immediately. The expression immediately means within three days as clarified by Explanation to Regulation 6 (1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
During the CIR Process period, the management of affairs of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, in terms of Section 17 of the I&B Code. The officers and managers of the Corporate Debtor shall provide all documents in their possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP within one week from the date of receipt of this Order, in default of which coercive steps will follow. There shall be no future opportunities in this regard.
The Interim Resolution Professional is also free to take police assistance to take full charge of the Corporate Debtor, its assets and its documents without any delay, and this Court hereby directs the concerned Police Authorities and/or the Officer-in-Charge of Local Police Station(s) to render all assistance as may be required by the Interim Resolution Professional in this regard.
The IRP or the RP, as the case may be, shall submit to this Adjudicating Authority periodical report with regard to the progress of the CIR Process in respect of the Corporate Debtor.
The Financial Creditors shall be liable to pay to IRP a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) as payment of his fees as advance, as per Regulation 33(3) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which amount shall be adjusted at the time of final payment. The expenses relating to the CIRP are subject to the approval of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
In terms of sections 7(5) and 7(7) of the Code, the Registry of this Adjudicating Authority is hereby directed to communicate this Order to the Financial Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the Interim Resolution Professional by Speed Post and through email immediately, and in any case, not later than two days from the date of this Order.
Additionally, the Registry of this Adjudicating Authority shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) for their record and also upon the Registrar of Companies (RoC), to whom the company is registered with, by all available means for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor. The said Registrar of Companies shall send a compliance report in this regard to the Registry of this Court within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Resolution Professional shall conduct CIRP in a time-bound manner as per Regulation 40A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016.
The IRP/RP shall be liable to submit the periodical report including the minutes of the CoC of the Corporate Debtor, with regard to the progress of the CIR Process in respect of the Corporate Debtor to this Adjudicating Authority from time to time.
The order of moratorium shall cease to have effect as per Section 14(4) of the I&B Code.
Certified copies of this order, if applied for with the Registry of this Adjudicating Authority, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
Post the Company Petition on 04/08/2025 for filing the Periodical Progress Report by the IRP/RP as appointed herein.