Punjab National Bank vs M/s Krishna Alex Private Limited

Per: Harish Chander Suri, Member (Technical)

The Court is convened by video conference today.

By way of this application filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, Punjab National Bank, a body corporate having its Head Office at New Delhi and the successor of Oriental Bank of Commerce by a scheme of amalgamation of Oriental Bank of Commerce/United Bank of India passed by the Central Government under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Financial Creditor) has sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of M/s Krishna Alex Private Limited having CIN: U28113WB2002PTC094809 and having its Registered Office at 121, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700073 (hereinafter referred as the Corporate Debtor). This application is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant General Manager of the Financial Creditor, who has been duly authorised vide letter of authority dated 14/06/2019 to make any pleadings and file affidavits and also to do all other acts necessary for filing the application under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

It is submitted in the application, Part-II that the authorised share capital of the Corporate Debtor is Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only), with 30,00,000 Equity shares of Rs.10/- each (Financial Year 2017-18). It has issued paid-up share capital of Rs.2,29,82,000/-(Rupees Two Crore Twenty-Nine Lakh Eighty-Two Thousand only) with 22,98,200 Non-cumulative share of Rs.10/- each. It is submitted in Part IV of the application that the Financial Creditor had granted a Cash Credit (Hypothecation) limit of Rs.10.50 Crore, Bank Guarantee limit of Rs.50.00 Lakh, Letter of Credit limit of Rs.7.50 Crore and Forward Contract limit of Rs.7.50 Crore (Credit equivalent to Rs.38.00 Lakh). It is stated that the total amount sanctioned was Rs.18.88 Crores, to the Corporate Debtor.

The Financial Creditor further submits that the Corporate Debtor committed default in payment of Rs.11,45,39,903.94 (Rupees Eleven Crore Forty-Five Lakh Thirty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Three and Paise Ninety-Four only) as on 08/12/2017 and the debt due was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 17/03/2018 to the tune of Rs.12,96,64,085.94 (Rupees Twelve Crore Ninety Six Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Eighty-Five and Paise Ninety Four only). It is further submitted that the total outstanding inclusive of interest calculated up to 31.05.2019 is Rs.19,63,61,994.50 (Rupees Nineteen Crores Sixty-Three Lacs Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four and Fifty Paise). The computation of outstanding amount with days of default is annexed with the application as (Annexure-I to the application).

The Financial Creditor in support of its claim has annexed various documents, records and evidence of default, which are enumerated as under:-

The Financial Creditor has further proposed the name of Smt. Rachna Jhunjhunwala, Insolvency Professional with the Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00389/2017-18/10707, who has filed Form-2 with this Adjudicating Authority giving her consent to her appointment as the IRP, if an admission order is passed in the present application. She has further, inter alia, mentioned that she is serving as RP in only one case and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against her either with the Board or with the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professional of ICAI.

The Corporate Debtor in its Reply-affidavit dated 11^th November, 2019 through one of its Directors Mr. Sumit Agarwal has submitted that the Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 27.06.2002 and the factory of Company was set up in January 2006 and was further expanded in September 2010. The Second Unit of the Company was set up in March 2011 and was expanded in October 2011. It is submitted that the Company was absolutely well and sound from 2006-2007 to 2017-2018 as mentioned in Para IV of the affidavit. It is further submitted that the turnover of the Company was increasing gradually and achieved good profit margins. It is stated that on 05.07.2016, the Company faced a major accident due to an explosion caused in Ageing machine, which caused the death of few workmen resulting in the closure of the factory from 05/07/2016 to 29/07/2016. Due to the said accident production of the company totally stopped and it faced a deep jolt, which led to the turmoil condition in the said company. It is further stated that the Company had gone under maintenance from 29/07/2016 to 30/11/2016, during which period the company suffered huge losses due to the said formidable accident. It is stated that the renovation of the said company started from 01/12/2016 onwards. The company filed its insurance claim of Rs. 250 lakhs for the period September 2016 to 2017 and submitted various documents but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Corporate Debtor on frivolous grounds. The Company took recourse to the appropriate Court of justice challenging the said repudiation of the claim made by the Insurance Company. It is stated that from July 2016 to December 2017 despite facing heavy losses, the company made various payments to the Financial Creditor to the tune of Rs. 8,97,38,379/- as mentioned in Para X. It is further stated in the affidavit that the company has suffered disaster due to the said accident and the said losses are yet to be recovered.

It is further submitted that the credit for the recovery of which the Financial Creditor has filed the petition, is a Consortium loan and Allahabad Bank and Bank of Baroda are the part of said Consortium and Allahabad Bank is the lead bank in the said Consortium which has already taken measures under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and also preferred the Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Kolkata for recovery of its dues, and those proceedings are challenged by the Corporate Debtor and are stated to be pending for adjudication.

It is stated that there was several joint lenders’ meeting held for the loan account of the said company at the office of the lead bank and jointly the financial creditors took for recovery of the dues. In such a meeting held on 07/08/2019, the insurance policies of the said company had been handed over to the lender banks for realizing their dues from the claim amount payable by the insurance company for the said accident having taken place in the year 2016 but the lenders did not take any proper step to realise the claim and left it over in an unreasonable manner.

It is stated that due to such indolence of the lenders, ultimately the corporate debtor took initiative to realize their legitimate insurance claim but after the lapse of one and a half years, the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the Corporate Debtor on a very lame point. Such repudiation has been challenged by the Corporate Debtor before the appropriate Court of law.

It is further stated that meanwhile the Corporate Debtor submitted the restructuring proposal before the Consortium for the survival of the said company, which is reflected in the minutes of the meeting held on 05.07.2018 and 10.05.2018 in between the lender banks and the present corporate debtor. The said restructuring proposal is still pending proper consideration.

It is stated that it would be clear from the extract of the minutes of the Consortium meeting dated 21.09.2017, that the company has achieved sales of Rs. 40 crore for the half-year ending September 2017. The main reason attributed to lower sales was the impact of demonetisation and implementation of GST.

It is stated that in the year 2017, the company has achieved sales of Rs. 40 crore for the half-year ending September 2017. Due to the demonetization and implementation of GST as well as the depression in the market condition, the company is running at loss presently but there is enough potential in the said company to survive. The process of insolvency can stop only the wheel of the factory but cannot invent a new organization. It is better to provide the appropriate time to the Corporate Debtor to refund the credits to the lender bank otherwise foreclosure of the company is not an appropriate remedy to realise the dues of the Financial Creditor.

It is further submitted that the lead bank of the Consortium i.e. Allahabad Bank has taken possession of the assets and properties of the company under the possession notice dated 22.01.2019 issued under the provisions of section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has already created a charge over the said property.

The Corporate Debtor further stated that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, the Corporate Debtor is a running company and striving for reorganizing its lost honour, and the liquidation will only succumb the bright future of the said company and livelihood of the thousands of workers and, therefore, the company may be given an opportunity to survive because its survival can recover its position. It is further submitted that the Corporate Debtor is trying hard to settle the dispute amicably with the Financial Creditor and other members of the Consortium by paying their legitimate dues and pray for time to settle the dispute.

In the rejoinder filed on 16^th January 2020 to the reply-affidavit of the Corporate Debtor, the Financial Creditor denied the averments mentioned in the reply-affidavit by the Corporate Debtor that the Financial Creditor had failed or neglected to render any kind of cooperation during the period of acute need. It is reiterated that all types of cooperation to the Corporate Debtor was provided by the Financial Creditor and approved the holding on operation with 10% cut back in Cash Credit & Letter of Credit Account as is reflected in the letter of the Financial Creditor dated 18^th October 2017 (Annexure-“X”) to the rejoinder. The Financial Creditor further submitted in Para ‘11’ of the rejoinder that the Corporate Debtor agitated that Insurance Policy of the Corporate Debtor had been handed over to the lender bank for realizing their dues from the claim amount payable by the Insurance Company for the said accident that took place in the year 2016, which does not tally with the Minutes of the meeting of Consortium Member held on 07.08.2019. It is denied that the lenders had not taken any proper steps to realize the claim and left it over in an unreasonable manner. It is further submitted that the restructuring proposal had been declined by the lender bank from time to time as the said proposal was not bankable and finally the OTS proposal of the Corporate Debtor was dealt with, in the meeting of the Consortium Member banks held on 16^th December 2019 in presence of Directors of the Corporate Debtor and after due discussions with the Directors of the Corporate Debtor, the OTS proposal was declined with instructions to improve the offer which should be acceptable to the Bank but both the Directors expressed their inability to increase offer amount and accordingly the OTS proposal was declined on 16^th December 2016 as mentioned in the minutes of the Consortium member banks on 16^th December 2019. (Annexure “X-1” ) to the rejoinder.

It is submitted by the Financial Creditor that the Corporate Debtor had informed that the company has achieved sales of Rs.40.00 Crore for the half-year, and informed that the main reason attributed for the lower sales is the impact of demonetization and GST implementation without supporting documents and that the Financial Creditor denied that due to demonization and implementation of GST as well as depression in the market condition, the Corporate Debtor is running in loss or that the process of insolvency could stop only the wheel of the factory but could not invent a new organization. The Financial Creditor further denied the need to provide any further time to the Corporate Debtor to refund the credits to the lender bank.

The Financial Creditor in its rejoinder to reply affidavit denied that the liquidation can only succumb the bright future of the said company or will destroy the livelihood of thousands of workers in the organization or that any opportunity of survival could be given. It is submitted that several opportunities and sufficient time had already been allowed by the Financial Creditor and other members of the Consortium banks but the Corporate Debtor has failed to liquidate the claim of the Financial Creditor and other Members. It is submitted that the Financial Creditor was compelled to file this application under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and O.A. No. 335/2019 under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 before the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkata which is also pending.

While reiterating the averments in the pleadings, the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Financial Creditor submitted that the debt and the default are admitted by the Corporate Debtor in their reply affidavit. According to the Ld. Senior Counsel, the averments made in the reply affidavit clearly indicate that the company had suffered losses and had been fighting for its survival. The Corporate Debtor had submitted a restructuring proposal also before the Consortium, which is reflected in the minutes of the meeting held on 5^th July 2018 and 10^th October 2018 between the lender Banks of the Corporate Debtor. It is further mentioned in the reply affidavit that the Corporate Debtor was trying hard to settle the dispute amicably with the Financial Creditor and other members of the Consortium by paying their legitimate dues and prayed for time before this Tribunal to settle the dispute in instalments. According to the Ld. Senior Counsel, there is no denial of debt and default by the Corporate Debtor and it tantamounts to the admission of the debt and default. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the debt as of 8^th December 2017 is Rs.11,45,39,903.94, which was classified as a Non Performing Assets on 17^th March 2018. It is submitted that the Original Lender Oriental Bank of Commerce was substituted by Punjab National Bank vide order of this Adjudicating Authority dated 11^th January 2021. The Financial Creditor has filed Statement of Accounts duly certified under section 2A of the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891, Certificate of modification of charge dated 14^th August 2015 issued by the MCA, Balance Confirmation dated 29^th November 2017 duly supported by Board Resolution of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that application under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 being O.A. No. 335/2019 is still pending adjudication.

Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that one Bansal Alumex Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bansal) is the corporate guarantor of the Corporate Debtor M/s Krishna Alex Private Limited. The Corporate Debtor herein is the Principal borrower. The Corporate Debtor and Bansal have common Directors, shareholders and Creditors. The common Directors of the Corporate Debtor and Bansal are Nitin Agarwal and Sumeet Agarwal. The common Financial Creditors are Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda and Indian Bank. Consequently, it is submitted that Section 7 applications against both the Corporate Debtor i.e. Krishna Alex Pvt. Ltd. and Bansal, the corporate guarantor, were filed in July 2019 with proposed common RP in both matters. Petition in respect of Bansal was admitted to the CIRP on 25^th February 2020 and the period of CIRP expired on 31^st May 2020.

It is submitted that the Factory of the Corporate Debtor is situated at the land belonging to Bansal. The lease by Bansal in favour of the Corporate Debtor is an un-registered one for 99 years period with lease rent payable only Rs.100 per month. It is submitted that the factory of the Corporate Debtor is running and the same is still a going concern. On the one hand, it is stated that the petition against the Corporate Debtor has not been decided, and on the other hand, no suitable plan is forthcoming in respect of the CIRP of Bansal.

Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor, however, in his reply submitted that until the conclusion of CIRP and liquidation of Bansal, the petition against the Corporate Debtor should not be admitted. It is argued that the claim of the Financial Creditor or its voting percentage could not be decided, pending its decision against Bansal, in the CIRP of Corporate Debtor because according to the Ld. Counsel, it may be that upon conclusion of the proceedings in respect of Bansal, the Financial Creditor would not have any claim against Corporate Debtor herein.

According to the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor, in Dr. Vishnu Agarwal v. Piramal Enterprises Limited, MANU/NL/0003/2019, 2019] 149 CLA 30 (Piramal), IFCI Limited v. ACCIL Hospitality Limited, MANU/NL/0130/2020, Shabad Khan Vs. Nisus Finance and Investment Manager & Ors., MANU/NL/0251/2020 and Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Ex-Director of Genegrow Commercial Private Limited, MANU/NL/0032/2020, this position has been appreciated by the Hon'ble NCLAT. In State Bank of India v. Athena Energy Ventures Private Limited, MANU/NL/0436/2020, [2021] 164 SCL 293 (Athena Energy), a different bench of hon’ble NCLAT has taken a contrary view. There is no judgement of the Supreme Court which decides this issue.

Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submits that precedent law requires that the earlier view of the Hon'ble NCLAT is required to be followed, in the event of a conflict. See: Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2014) 16 SCC 623, paras 19 and 20.

Ld. Counsel submits that in the present situation, the view taken in Piramal is the earlier view, therefore, the same shall be followed.

Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor further submitted that the Financial Creditor has now relied upon Kanwar Raj Bhagat v. Gujrat Hydrocarbons and Power SEZ Limited through IRP & Anr., 2021 SCC Online NCLAT 157 and State Bank of India v.. V.Ramakrishnan, (2018)17 SCC 394 (Ramakrishnan) which follows the view taken in Athena Energy.

It is further stated on behalf of the Corporate Debtor that in Athena Energy, the hon’ble NCLAT relies on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramakrishnan. The Ramakrishnan case deals with section 60(2) of IBC, 2016. So does Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (Lalit Kumar Jain), a later judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which upholds the vires of section 60(2). Ramakrishnan case and Lalit Kumar Jain case cannot be relied upon as a precedent for a proposition at hand because, section 60(2) of IBC, 2016 directs that when a petition is pending before the NCLT against the Principle Borrower, a petition against the Guarantor would have to be instituted before such authority. Section 60(5) further mandates that such authority would have the right to entertain the applications. These provisions and/or rights created thereunder are provided by the statute. The Code does not separately or specifically create any such right or jurisdiction, where both the borrower and guarantor are corporate persons. The intrinsic connection between a company and its directors who may be guarantors have been recognised in these judgements. The same would not apply to two separate persons. Further, there is no concept of group insolvency or connection between two corporate debtors in processes under the Code.

Ld. Counsel further submits that in Sandeep Kumar Bafna Case, the Supreme Court held that the latter view is per incurium because it is required to follow the earlier view. Therefore, the petition against the Corporate Debtor may be stayed pending decision and result of the proceedings relating to Bansal following the former view.

Ld. Counsel further submits that the issue at hand (the issue being whether the present petition should be admitted until the conclusion of CIRP of Bansal) is no longer open to be independently decided by the Adjudicating Authority.

Ld. Counsel stated that the Adjudicating Authority would follow either the view adopted by the NCLAT in Piramal or the view adopted in Athena Energy case. Since Piramal is the earlier view, such judgement must be followed and the present proceeding may be stayed or adjourned sine die or be dismissed with liberty to file afresh after conclusion of CIRP of Bansal.

While dealing with contentions of the Financial Creditor, it is argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stayed the view or passed status quo order in respect of Piramal case and other cases where similar view had been expressed by the Hon’ble NCLAT. It is argued that the order of stay is only binding in between the parties and it does not affect the precedential value of a judgement [Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras, (1992) 3 SCC 1 paragraph 10, and Pijush Kanti Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2007) 3 CHN 178, paragraph 7 and 10].

It is submitted that the exact claim of the Financial Creditor cannot be ascertained until CIRP of Bansal is complete. Even if it is admitted that the claim is about Rs.1,00,000/-, it is not the argument of the Corporate Debtor that the petition should be dismissed. Argument of Corporate Debtor is that until CIRP of Bansal is concluded, CIRP of the Corporate Debtor may not be initiated.

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor that it is not open to the Financial Creditor to raise such contentions inasmuch as the ratio of Lalit Kumar Jain case and Ramakrishna case do not directly decide the issue raised in the present matter, which has been dealt with in Piramal. The ratio decidendi is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case. It is not a conclusion based upon facts. It is not deduction [The Regional Manager & Anr.,(1976) 3 SCC 334, paragraph 7 and Quinn v. Leatham, (1901) 1 AC 49].

It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor that looking at the facts of the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and enunciation of law, it can be safely stated that the ratio of either of the two cases would not decide the present case because no such situation was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in either of the two cases. It is submitted that Lalit Kumar Jain case is a judgement on the vires of section 60 of the Code, whereas Ramakrishnan is a judgement on personal guarantee and the liability of the guarantor in terms of section 31 of the Code. It is submitted that the ratio of either of the two judgements would not directly apply. It is argued that the test would be whether by either Ramakrishnan case or Lalit Kumar Jain case, Piramal or the other judgments operating on the same field, would stand impliedly overruled and can be said to be per incurium and the answer would be in the negative. It is submitted that this Adjudicating Authority would not be in a position to hold that the Piramal view is to be held per incurium or any such judgments are per incurium that would be contrary to the law of precedents. It is submitted that if the judgement is to be passed deducing the law from Lalit Kumar Jain or Ramakrishnan case, it would be identical to the Athena Energy case, already based by Hon’ble NCLAT and that it would be akin to Athena Energy case. It is submitted that this is a latter view and cannot be followed since there is already an earlier view on the issue.

The Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor further submitted that Lalit Kumar Jain case only operates the vires of section 60 of IBC, 2016 which permits such a proceeding to be filed. Neither does Section 60 speak nor does it enumerate whether during the pendency of CIRP of Corporate Debtor No.1, CIRP of Corporate Debtor No.2 can be initiated, when the Corporate Debtors are Borrowers/Guarantors. It is submitted that this issue or topic is not discussed in the Lalit Kumar Jain case or for that matter in the Ramakrishnan case. It is submitted that Section 60 of the Code is also not conclusive on the decision. Learned Counsel further submitted that section 60 of IBC, 2016 was in the statute book at the time when Piramal was decided. Whether considered or not, it is not for the Adjudicating Authority to term such authority sub silentio or per incurium. It is submitted that the petition against Krishna Alex Private Limited may be stayed pending decision and result of the proceedings relating to Bansal.

The Corporate Debtor has not denied the existence of either the debt or the default. It has, however, raised the issue that whether the present petition can be admitted until the conclusion of CIRP of Bansal.

Judgments on the aforesaid issue have been cited from both sides. The judgment heavily relied on by the Corporate Debtor is Piramal that was decided on 08.01.2019 by the Hon’ble NCLAT, that lays down that once an application under Section 7 filed by the Financial Creditor is admitted against either the Principal Borrower or the Corporate Guarantor, a second application by the same Financial Creditor for the same set of claim and default cannot be admitted against the other.

The Financial Creditor has relied on Athena Energy, decided on 24.11.2020, wherein the Hon’ble NCLAT has differed from what has been held in the Piramal judgment. In Athena Energy, the Hon’ble NCLAT while referring to section 60(2) and 60(3) of the Code, which had not been noticed in the Piramal judgment, has observed that the Code does not have aversion to simultaneous proceeding against the Corporate Debtor and Corporate Guarantor. If two applications can be filed for the same amount against Principal Borrower and Guarantor, keeping in view the section 60(2) and 60(3), the applications can be maintained too.

The Hon’ble NCLAT has also referred to the observations made by the Insolvency Law Committee in its Report of February 2020 and was of the view that simultaneous remedy is central to the contract of guarantee where Principal Borrower and surety are undergoing CIRP.

Having perused both the judgments, i.e., Piramal and Athena Energy, we are inclined to go with the Hon’ble NCLAT in Athena Energy for the reasons that the judgment in Piramal does not deal with section 60(2) and 60(3) and also the February 2020 Report of the Insolvency Law Committee insofar as the simultaneous CIRP of the Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor is concerned.

However, it has been argued on behalf of the Corporate Debtor that when an issue is decided by different benches of the same strength of the same higher court of the appellate tribunal, the view taken in the judgment that has been decided prior in time has to be adhered to by subordinate courts and tribunals unless the issue is decided by a larger bench or court.

While the aforesaid argument of the Corporate Debtor is correct and the subordinate courts and tribunals are indeed bound by the judgment that has been decided prior in time, it is also a settled principle of law that when a court comes across judgments on the same issue decided by the court of co-equal strength, then the court may follow a decision that the court considers to have been decided correctly.

In para 24 of the Jaydeo S/o Mahadeo Parate v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1283, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that “the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamleshwar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, 1994 Mh.L.J. 1669 dealing with a question as to what course has to be followed by the High Court when confronted with contrary decisions of the Supreme Court emanating from Benches of coequal strength, has held that the High Court is not necessarily bound to follow the decision later in point of time, but must follow the one which in its view is better in point of law. For coming at such a conclusion, the Full Bench of this Court has relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 519.”

Following the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that has been followed by the Hon’ble High Court, we are of the considered view that the Hon’ble NCLAT’s judgment in Athena Energy is the correct position of law. The present petition against the Corporate Debtor can be admitted despite the Corporate Debtor being under CIRP.

We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Financial Creditor and learned Counsel Appearing for the Corporate Debtor and perused the record.

The present petition made by the Financial Creditor is complete in all respect as required by law. The petition establishes 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, i.e., Rupees one lakh, at the relevant time.

It is, accordingly, hereby ordered as follows:-

CP (IB) No. 1128/KB/2019 to come up on 15.11.2021 for filing the Progress Report.

A certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.