AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant petition is filed on behalf of Punjab National Bank (“Petitioner” / “Financial Creditor” / “PNB”) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) against M/s SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Ltd. (Formerly Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd.) (“Corporate Debtor” / “CD”). CD is a listed Public Company, bearing CIN: L74899DL1989PLC038542, having its registered office at Tower 1, 5th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New De1hi -110017, India, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against the Corporate Debtor.
The Petitioner is a Financial Creditor, a Bank constituted under The Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Plot No. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, and one its branch at Zonal SASTRA Centre, South Delhi, First Floor, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
Another Financial Creditor, namely Citicorp International Limited had filed a petition bearing Company Petition No. 446/2013 under Section 434, (e), (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the High Court of Delhi to initiate winding up proceedings, in the year 2013 against Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd., the CD and pursuant thereto the CD was admitted to winding up by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 28.07.2017 and official liquidator was appointed. The Official Liquidator accordingly took possession of the assets of the CD.
The Delhi High Court, vide order dated 25.07.2023, transferred the matter to this Adjudicating Authority, and the matter was listed before this bench as TP (Co. Act) - 08(PB)/2023. It has transpired that, pursuant to the admission order passed by the High Court, some of the assets had already been sold and the sale of others was being finalized, and sevral applications in respect of these sales were also filed before this Bench.CD continued to be represented through its official liquidator.
Accordingly, the CD is being represented by the Official Liquidator in the instant matter.
In the present matter, it has been submitted on behalf of PNB that in May 2006, the Corporate Debtor through its directors Padam Singhee and Prem Singhee, approached PNB for credit facilities. The bank, vide sanction letter dated 26.05.2006, sanctioned a term loan, foreign letters of credit, a short-term loan, and bank guarantees. To secure these facilities, the Corporate Debtor executed deeds of hypothecation over its movable assets and current assets. Additionally, personal guarantees were executed by Padam Singhee and Prem Singhee, along with a corporate guarantee from SVUL Projects Ltd., with corresponding charges properly registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC).
Between late 2006 and 2009, the Corporate Debtor repeatedly sought enhancements of its credit lines, prompting the formation of a banking consortium led by State Bank of India (‘SBI’) along with Punjab National Bank. Through multiple board resolutions, inter-se agreements, supplementary contracts and joint deeds of hypothecation, the total multi-bank facilities grew significantly to cover expanded working capital, cash credit and non-fund-based limits. The loans were continuously secured by first and second pari passu charges on current and fixed assets, share pledges, and renewed personal and corporate guarantees of Dharti Oil Services Pvt. Ltd. and T.R.S. Technology.
By 2010, the loan consortium expanded further to include ICICI Bank and other financial institutions to accommodate the request of the Corporate Debtor for further credit facilities of Rs. 857 Crores. In March-April 2013, the consortium was reconstituted with SBI, ICICI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra along with PNB, and SBI continued as the lead Bank. Following financial irregularities and defaults in payment around 2013, by the Corporate Debtor the lenders entered into Master Restructuring Agreements (MRA) under Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) mechanisms.
The Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the obligations of the CDR package, leading the Financial Creditor to exit the arrangement on 22.06.2016. Consequently, the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.06.2016 with effect from 26.12.2013. PNB recalled the entire facility, issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 23.12.2016 and filed a recovery application (Original Application No. 38/2022) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi, claiming a total outstanding amount of Rs. 319,74,06,703.59 along with contractual interest.
Further, Form 1 has been filed, part IV of which is extracted hereinafter:
| Nature of Facility | Bank Guarantee- Enhancement |
| Amount | Rs. 75.00 crores (Rupees 75 crores enhanced from existing Rs. 35 crores) |
| Margin | 5% in the shape of FDRs -100% for disputed liabilities |
| Purpose | Performance under Contract |
Facility No. 3:
Nature of Facility ILC/FLC (DP/DA-upto 90 days) Amount Rs. 5.00 crores (Rs. 5.00 crores enhanced from Rs. 2.00 crores) Margin 10% in the shape of FDRs Purpose Purchase/Import of stores/spares & consumable Security DA/DP Documents alongwith approved MTR/RR,B/L Commission As per extant guidelines or as approved in the sanction 5.The Financial Creditor on the request of Corporate Debtor in March 2009 again sanctioned the following credit facilities:-
CREDIT FACILITY AMOUNT Cash Credit (Book-Debts) Facility Rs. 50,00,00,000.00 Bank Guarantee Rs. 123,00,00,000.00 Bank Guarantee Specific Rs. 47,00,00,000.00 ILC/FLC Rs. 05,00,00,000.00 6.The Financial Creditor also sanctioned additional short term Loan Facility of Rs. 30,00,00,000.00 for three months on 29.09.2009.
Facility Limit Short Term Facility Rs. 30.00 Crs. 7.The Financial Creditor on request of the Corporate Debtor also sanctioned additional short term loan facility of Rs. 50,00,00,000.00 on 24.12.2009
Facility Limit Short Term Facility Rs. 50.00 Crs. 8.The Corporate Debtor in August, 2010, again approached the Financial Creditor for sanctioning of credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 857 crores. The Financial Creditor requested the Applicant Bank to form a consortium. Thus, a consortium with three banks namely State of India, ICICI Bank & Financial Creditor was formed and State Bank of India was the lead Bank. Inter se agreement and supplemental working capital consortium agreement between the lending banks was executed on 23.12.2010. The sharing between the above three banks was to the tune of the following: State Bank of India- Rs. 315 crores. ICICI Bank- Rs. 285 crores. Punjab National Bank- Rs. 257 crores.
9.The elaborate detail of credit facilities requested by the Corporate Debtor are given below:- (Rs.in crores)
Facilities State Bank of India ICICI Bank Ltd. Punjab National Bank Fund based Cash Credit/Book Debts Limit 93.00 75.00 82.00 Non Fund based Import/Inland Letter of credit Limit 22.50 (100.00) 5.00 Bank Guarantee Limit 198.00 210.00 170.00 Forward Contracts 1.50 -- -- TOTAL 315.00 285.00 257.00 10.The details of credit facilities sanctioned (renewal/fresh/enhancement) to the Corporate Debtor are given below: (Rupees in crores)
Name of the bank FB NFB Total State Bank of India 93.00 222.00 315.00 Punjab National Bank 82.00 (CC Limit enhanced from Rs. 50 crores to 82 crores) 174.50 256.50 ICICI Bank Ltd. 25.00 115.00 140.00 TOTAL 200.00 510.50 711.50 11.That Corporate Debtor again in the month of March-April, 2013, approached the Financial Creditor for sanctioning of credit facilities under consortium being State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and ICICI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra sanctioned the following credit facilities:-
Banks Fund Based Working Capital Non-Fund Based Working Capital Total State Bank of India 93.00 222.00 315.00 Punjab National Bank 82.00 174.50 256.50 ICICI Bank 75.00 90.00 165.00 Bank of Maharashtra 50.00 00.00 50.00 Total 300.00 486.50 786.50 2.AMOUNT CLAIMED IN DEFAULT (including e-OBC and e-UNI)as on30.11.2024 along with future interest and expenses thereon:-
| Account Number | Name of Facilities | Sanctioned amount (INR) | Total Amount Claimed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1820008700000154 | Cash Credit | 90000000 | 5523540736.00 |
| 642000IC00000149 | Term Loan | 135800000 | 439446309.00 |
No reply to the petition has been filed by the Official Liquidator (Respondent/OL) of the CD. Instead, the OL has expressly stated that she has no objection in case the instant petition is admitted. The consent of the official liquidator, for the initiation of CIRP, was recorded by this Adjudicating Authority in its order dated 21.09.2026, which is extracted below:
Beyond a simpliciter ‘no objection’ by the Official Liquidator, representing CD, there is a crucial question involved in the instant case that whether an order admitting the petition can be passed under Section 7 of the IBC at this stage and in the instant petition, when some assets of the CD have admittedly been sold under winding up, initially under the supervision of the High Court and, thereafter, continued by the NCLT in TP (Co. Act) -08(PB)/2023.
It is pertinent to peruse the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court, vide which the matter was transferred to the NCLT. The relevant part of the said order is extracted below:
Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to it by a creditor or any party to the proceedings. It is only where the winding up proceedings have reached a stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up, instead of transferring the proceedings to the NCLT to now be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Whether this stage is reached would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case”
The concerns expressed by both the Banks are that under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in view of the specific timelines, which are prescribed and the NCLT being an expert Tribunal, the process of liquidation would be considerably expedited. The Company, under liquidation, owns oil rigs and various other immovable and moveable properties of high value. In order to ensure that the value is not depreciated, the secured creditors seek transfer to the NCLT.
On behalf of the Official Liquidator, Ms. Sindhwani, ld. Counsel makes two submissions. Firstly, she submits that the winding up is not at an advanced stage & can be transferred to the NCLT in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Action Ispat and Power Limited v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited ( 2021) 2 SCC 641. However, the concern that she raises relates to the security charges being incurred by the OL for securing the immovable assets of the Company, which is under liquidation. She submits that a total amount of over Rs.8.45 crores has been incurred by the OL as on 31st March, 2023 to safeguard the properties of the Company. In her submission, the secured creditors ought to reimburse the same to the OL so that the OL is not deprived of the amounts, which are fairly due. Secondly, she submits that an order ought to be passed by this Court securing the properties during the transfer process, especially when the IRP is yet to be appointed; once the properties are released from the OL and also after transfer to the NCLT.
Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 reads as under:
“434. Transfer of certain pending proceedings
(1)On such date as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf,-
(a)all matters, proceedings or cases pending before the Board of Company Law Administration (herein in this section referred to as the Company Law Board) constituted under sub-section (1) of section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), immediately before such date shall stand transferred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall dispose of such matters, proceedings or cases in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(b)any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board made before such date may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order: Provided that the High Court may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days; and
(c)all proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), including proceedings relating to arbitration, compromise, arrangements and reconstruction and winding up of companies, pending immediately before such date before any District Court or High Court, shall stand transferred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may proceed to deal with such proceedings from the stage before their transfer: Provided that only such proceedings relating to the winding up of companies shall be transferred to the Tribunal that are at a stage as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Provided further that only such proceedings relating to cases other than winding-up, for which orders for allowing or otherwise of the proceedings are not reserved by the High Courts shall be transferred to the Tribunal
[Provided also that]-
(i)all proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 other than the cases relating to winding up of companies that are reserved for orders for allowing or otherwise such proceedings; or
(ii)the proceedings relating to winding up of companies which have not been transferred from the High Courts; shall be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.]
Provided also that proceedings relating to cases of voluntary winding up of a company where notice of the resolution by advertisement has been given under sub-section (1) of section 485 of the Companies Act, 1956 but the Company has not been dissolved before the 1st April, 2017 shall continue to be dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.”
As per the proviso highlighted above, upon the application being filed by any of the parties to the proceedings, the transfer may be made by the Court in terms of the second proviso of Section 434 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956. In Action Ispat (supra), if the winding up is not at an advanced stage, the High Court may transfer the matter to the NCLT. The relevant portion of the said judgement is set out below:
“31.Given the aforesaid scheme of winding up under Chapter XX of the Companies Act, 2013, it is clear that several stages are contemplated, with the Tribunal retaining the power to control the proceedings in a winding up petition even after it is admitted. Thus, in a winding up proceeding where the petition has not been served in terms of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 at a pre-admission stage, given the beneficial result of the application of the Code, such winding up proceeding is compulsorily transferable to the NCLT to be resolved under the Code. Even post issue of notice and pre admission, the same result would ensue. However, post admission of a winding up petition and after the assets of the company sought to be wound up become in custodia legis and are taken over by the Company Liquidator, section 290 of the Companies Act, 2013 would indicate that the Company Liquidator may carry on the business of the company, so far as may be necessary, for the beneficial winding up of the company, and may even sell the company as a going concern. So long as no actual sales of the immovable or movable properties have taken place, nothing irreversible is done which would warrant a Company Court staying its hands on a transfer application made to it by a creditor or any party to the proceedings. It is only where the winding up proceedings have reached a stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up, instead of transferring the proceedings to the NCLT to now be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Whether this stage is reached would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
In the present case, the Provisional Liquidator was appointed in 2017. However, the winding up is not at an advanced stage. No auction has been conducted, no claims have been invited. Clearly the winding up process could consume considerable time. Accordingly, the present company petition is transferred to the NCLT. The entire record of the present petition
The discussion above shows that the Delhi High Court was approached by the secured creditors with the specific request that, since the winding up was not yet at an advanced stage, with no auction having been held and no claims having been invited, the same may be transferred to the NCLT, being the Adjudicating Authority, for proceedings in terms of the IBC. On behalf of the secured creditors, it was indicated before the Delhi High Court that an Interim Resolution Professional would be appointed in terms of the IBC. Furthermore, the Delhi High court has also recorded that OL shall continue to control the properties of the CD subject to future orders of this Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the very intent behind transfer was to save the CD from liquidation and give it an opportunity of revival through CIRP.
The Supreme Court in Action Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Shyam Metalics And Energy Limite CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4041 OF 2020 decided on 15.12.2020, specifically held that, even after the admission of the winding-up and appointment of the liquidator, transfer to NCLT is possible so long as the winding-up has not reached an irreversible stage.
In view of the above, it is concluded that where irreversible steps have not been taken, the Company can be saved from the rigours of winding up or liquidation and, rather, be pushed to survival through CIRP in terms of the IBC. The NCLT, as an Adjudicating Authority, upon receiving a matter on transfer from the High Court does not have an option to skip the process of CIRP and directly start with liquidation. This Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the company to CIRP (whether with independent verification or through deemed admission) and appoint an Interim Resolution Professional.
With the above, we may also refer to A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 435. In that matter, winding up petition as admitted by the Bombay High Court was pending, and in the meantime, another creditor filed a petition for initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC. A private sale had already been undertaken by the secured creditor outside the winding up, and that sale was under challenge. NCLT admitted the petition under Section 7 of the IBC and appointed IRP. The High Court thereafter passed an order directing Liquidator to handover the charge to IRP. The Supreme Court upheld the admission order BY the NCLT, with the following observation:
“Short of an irresistible conclusion that corporate death is inevitable, every effort should be made to resuscitate the corporate debtor in the larger public interest, which includes not only the workmen of the corporate debtor, but also its creditors and the goods it produces in the larger interest of the economy of the country. It is, thus, not possible to accede to the argument on behalf of the Appellant that given Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 / Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, once a winding up petition is admitted, the winding up petition should trump any subsequent attempt at revival of the company through a Section 7 or Section 9 petition filed under the IBC. ”… …
“What is clear by this Section is that a compromise or arrangement can also be entered into in an IBC proceeding if liquidation is ordered. However, what is of importance is that under the Companies Act, it is only winding up that can be ordered, whereas under the IBC, the primary emphasis is on revival of the corporate debtor through infusion of a new management.”
The objectives of the IBC also weigh in favour of admission. The Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17, while upholding the constitutional validity of the Code, has emphasised that the IBC is a beneficial legislation, the primary focus of which is the revival and continuation of the corporate debtor and not merely recovery for creditors, with liquidation being resorted to only when all attempts at resolution fail. The Preamble to the Code records its objects as time-bound reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, maximisation of the value of their assets, promotion of entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. The scheme of the Code, with a Committee of Creditors, an open invitation for resolution plans and valuation of assets, is designed to realise the best possible value of the assets of the corporate debtor, which a piecemeal sale of assets in winding up may not achieve.
In the present case, the CD is a listed public company. Its affairs concern not only its lenders but also its public shareholders and other stakeholders. Several secured creditors are presently pursuing separate recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunals, and the winding up has, so far, resulted in the sale of only some of the assets. A collective and time-bound process under the IBC, in which the Official Liquidator hands over the charge of the remaining assets to the IRP, offers a better prospect of maximising the realisation of the CD's assets and of reviving the CD as a going concern for the benefit of all stakeholders than the continuation of winding up. In these circumstances, particularly as no irreversible step has been taken and the Official Liquidator has no objection, it is appropriate to admit the CD to CIRP.
In view of the above, it is a settled position that despite the pendency of a winding-up petition under erstwhile Companies Act, a petition in IBC can be admitted for commencement of CIRP, provided no irreversible steps have been taken pursuant to the winding-up order. In the present case, as per transfer order of the High Court as discussed above itself no irreversible steps were taken.
After the matter was transferred to this Adjudicating Authority, no material steps have been taken by this Adjudicating Authority towards winding up of the Corporate Debtor. It may be noted here that, for the purpose of formal commencement of CIRP of CD in TP (Co. Act) - 08(PB)/2023, we, vide orders dated 16.08.2023 and 11.03.2024, had directed the petitioner therein i.e., Citicorp International Limited to file Form 1, however, the same was never filed despite directions. Further, vide order dated 23.09.2024 and 20.11.2024, we also issued directions / granted liberty to Punjab National Bank to file Form-1; however, the same was not done. In absence of Form – 1, CIRP could not be formally commenced qua CD in the transferred matter i.e., TP (Co. Act) - 08(PB)/2023. Be that as it may, the Official Liquidator, as recorded in our order dated 21.09.2026 in TP (Co. Act) -08(PB)/2023, has unconditionally undertaken to handover a charge to the IRP who may be appointed in the instant matter.
Further, at the cost of repetition, we reiterate that merely because the CD was already lying in winding up on the premise of the admission order passed by the High Court, this Adjudicating Authority has no power to bypass the process prescribed in IBC and CIRP regulations and therefore, direction commencement of liquidation also cannot be a question under consideration. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority, in view of no objection raised by the Official Liquidator, is bound to admit the CD to CIRP vide a formal order.
23. ORDER
Accordingly, we formally ADMIT the present petition bearing No. CP (IB) 253(ND)/2025 under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, for commencement of CIRP against SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Limited (formerly Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd.)
As a consequence, thereof, the petition being admitted in terms of Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, the moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016 shall follow in relation of the Corporate Debtor as per clauses (a) to (d). However, during the pendency of the moratorium period, the terms of Section 14(2) to Section 14 (3) of the IBC, 2016 shall come into force. The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or as the case may be. Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall come into effect from the date of this order;
The Financial Creditor has proposed the name of Resurgent Resolution Professionals LLP, through its Authorised Signatory, Sudhir Chandi, Designated Partner, having registration no. IBBI/IPE/0084 as the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). The proposed IRP has submitted its written communication in Form-2, as required under Rule 9(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, with a copy of the registration annexed. A copy of the written consent has been annexed at page 1074 of the Application. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority appoints Resurgent Resolution Professionals LLP, as the Interim Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor. The details of the IRP are as under: Name : Resurgent Resolution Professionals LLP Registration No.: IBBI/IPE/0084 Email ID : [email protected] Address : 905, 9th Floor, Tower C, Unitech Business Zone, Nirvana Country, Sector-50, Gurgaon - 122018, Haryana.
The official liquidator shall hand over the charge of the Corporate Debtor, including its assets and documents thereof, to the IRP so appointed and take steps in relation to the Liquidation process in TP (Co. Act) - 08(PB)/2023 given affect to.
The official liquidator shall cooperate with and assist the IRP as and when required for the purpose of CIRP.
In pursuance of Section 13 (2) of the IBC, 2016, we direct the IRP to make a public announcement immediately with regard to the admission of this application under Section 7 of the Code. The expression ‘immediately’ means within three days, as clarified by the Explanation to Regulation 6(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The official liquidator shall hand over the list of claims if any, already collated by her during winding up.
During the CIRP period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP/RP, in terms of Section 17 of the IBC. The official liquidator 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. The official liquidator shall also furnish complete particulars of sale if any, has taken place in the winding up either via auction or through private sale by any secured creditor, to the IRP. The official liquidator shall also furnish complete particulars of litigation if any, pending regarding assets of the Corporate Debtor, in any or otherwise.
The IRP is expected to take full charge of the Corporate Debtor’s assets and documents without any delay whatsoever. He is also free to take police assistance, and this Court hereby directs the Police Authorities to render all assistance as may be required by the IRP in this regard.
The IRP or the RP, as the case may be, shall submit to this Adjudicating Authority a periodical report with regard to the progress of the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor and the action taken in compliance of Section 17, 18, 20, 25 of the Code and Regulation 3A & 4 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.
The Financial Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) with the IRP to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. These expenses are subject to the approval of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). This amount shall be adjusted towards the fees and expenses payable to the IRP/RP.
The Registry is hereby directed to communicate a copy of the order to the FC, the Corporate Debtor, the IRP and the Registrar of Companies, NCR, New Delhi, by Speed Post and by email, at the earliest but not later than seven days from today, and upload the same on the website immediately after pronouncement of the order. The Registrar of Companies shall update its website by updating the status of the Corporate Debtor, and specific mention regarding admission of this petition must be notified.
The Registry is further directed to send a copy of the order to the IBBI also for its record.
A certified copy of the order may be issued to all the concerned parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities. IRP to report compliance within four weeks.