Sachetna Finance Private Limited vs Shroff Textiles Limited

[PER: CORAM]

This C.P. (IB) No.304/MB/2026 (Application) was filed on 23.03.2026 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 Sachetna Finance Private Limited, the Financial Creditor (FC), for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Shroff Textiles Limited, the Corporate Debtor (CD), for the alleged default in repayment of financial debt of Rs. 6,32,50,000/-.

The date of default, as given in Part IV of the Application is 27.06.2023.

The Applicant has proposed Mr. Hemant J. Mehta, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00027/2016-2017/10060, to act as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in case the Application is admitted.

The total amount of debt granted with date(s) of disbursement are as follows:

A copy of bank statement of Financial creditor’s account bearing No. 13930200006396 with Federal Bank evidencing the aforesaid disbursements to the Corporate Debtor is annexed as Exhibit “A”. A certificate dated 01.10.2025 from Federal Bank confirming the above disbursements in favour of the Corporate Debtor is annexed as Exhibit “B”.

The Financial Creditor further submitted the copies of the audited financial statements of the Corporate Debtor for the financial years ending 31.03.2019 and 31.03.2023, as filed by the Corporate Debtor with the Registrar of Companies and available on the online portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, reflect the outstanding debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor. Copies of the said audited financial statement are annexed as Exhibit “C” of the Application.

It is submitted that, prior to the above disbursements, Sachetna finance Private Limited (“Financial Creditor”) and Shoff Textile Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) had entered into a Loan Agreement dated 19.09.2017 (“2017 Loan Agreement”) for a loan amount of Rs. 63,00,000/- on the terms and conditions therein. A copy of the 2017 Loan Agreement is annexed as Exhibit “D” to the Application.

It is further submitted that, vide Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 19.09.2017, the Corporate Debtor deposited its title deeds with the Financial Creditor i.e., Agreement of Lease dated 06.01.1979 and Lease Deed dated 18.02.1988 entered into between Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“MIDC”) and Corporate Debtor for leasing a piece of land known as Plot No. J-78 in the Tarapur Industrial area, with in the village limits of Saravalli, Tq. Palghar, Dist. Palghar, containing the ad-measuring 6,823 Sq. Mtrs, or thereabouts (“Land”/ “Property”) for securing a loan from the Financial Creditor amounting to Rs. 63,00,000/- under the 2017 Loan Agreement. Copy of the Original Lease Deed dated 18.02.1988 entered into between MIDC and the Corporate Debtor is annexed as Exhibit “E” to the Application.

It is submitted that, on 19.09.2017, by way of security for repayment of loan under the 2017 Loan Agreement, the Corporate Debtor also submitted a Demand Promissory Note and Demand promissory Note Delivery Letter and post-dated cheques for repayment of principal and interest. The loan amount of Rs. 63,00,000/- under the 2017 Loan Agreement was repaid by the Corporate Debtor on 03.10.2018.

Vide letter dated 18.09.2018, the Corporate Debtor requested the Financial Creditor for a loan enhancement to the tune of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- for its business. Copy of the letter dated 18.09.2018 is annexed as Exhibit “F” to the Application. Thereafter, vide Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.10.2018, the Corporate Debtor deposited the Title Deeds for Leased Land with the Financial Creditor for securing a loan of Rs. 4,50,00,000. Copy of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.10.2018 is annexed as Exhibit “G” to the Application.

The Financial Creditor agreed to grant such loan and pursuant thereto a Loan Agreement dated 11.10.2018 (“2018 Loan Agreement”) was entered into between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor for a loan amount of Rs. 4,50,00,000 on the terms and conditions specified therein. Copy of the 2018 Loan Agreement is annexed as Exhibit “H” of the Application.

The repayment schedule mentioned in the schedule to the 2018 Loan Agreement is annexed as Exhibit “I” to the Application.

In order to secure the loan under the 2018 Loan Agreement, one of the whole-time directors of the Corporate Debtor i.e., Mr. Shrenik Dhirajlal Shroff (“Guarantor”) stood as guarantor for the loan granted under 2018 Loan Agreement and executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 10.10.2018. In addition, the Corporate Debtor also issued a Demand Promissory Note dated 11.10.2018 for repayment of the said loan of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- along with interest from the date of disbursal till full discharge of the said amount. The copy of the Deed of Guarantee dated 10.11.2018 and a copy of Resolution dated 20.09.2018 along with Demand Promissory Note dated 11.10.2018 are annexed as Exhibit “J” to the Application.

In addition, thereto it was agreed that the charge on the property created in favour of the Financial Creditor by way of deposit of title deeds shall continue in respect of the loan granted under the 2018 Loan Agreement.

On 11.10.2018, the Corporate Debtor submitted cheque submission form with 120 post-dated cheques drawn on Bank of India in favour of Financial Creditor from the period 30.10.2018 till 30.09.2023 respectively (from Cheque No. 142251 to Cheque No. 142373), for repayment of principal and interest under the 2018 Loan Agreement. The copy of the cheque submission form dated 11.10.2018, submitted by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor is annexed as Exhibit “K” to the Application.

Subsequently, through letters dated 17.08.2020, 20.01.2021 and 27.06.2022, the Corporate Debtor requested additional term loans of Rs. 90,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and Rs. 45,00,000/- respectively. The Copies of the Letter dated 17.08.2020, 20.01.2021 and 27.06.2022 issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor are annexed as Exhibit “L” to the Application.

The Corporate Debtor, along with guarantor Mr. Shrenik Dhirajlal Shroff, submitted copies of Resolutions, Delivery Letters along with Demand Promissory Notes dated 29.08.2020 for Rs. 90,00,000/- and 20.01.2021 for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- with 18% annual interest respectively. Additionally, the Corporate Debtor submitted copy of Resolution, Delivery Letter along with Demand Promissory Note dated 27.06.2022 for 45,00,000/- with 15% annual interest. Copies of Resolutions, Delivery Letters and Demand Promissory Notes dated 29.08.2020, 20.01.2021 and 27.06.2022 respectively. Copies of Resolutions, Delivery Letters and Demand Promissory Notes dated 29.08.2020, 20.01.2020 and 27.06.2022 respectively are annexed as Exhibit “M” to the Application

The Corporate Debtor through its letter dated 20.01.2021 had also requested the Financial Creditor to reschedule the repayments into monthly instalments over additional period of 5 to 7 years. The Corporate Debtor also provided three undated cheques as and by way of security: Cheque No. 194035 for Rs. 90,00,000/-, cheque No. 194150 for Rs.2,00,00,000/-and cheque No. 234501 for 45,00,000/- all drawn on Bank of India, Juhu Branch, in favour of the Financial Creditor. Copies of undated cheques given by way of security by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor are annexed as Exhibit “N” to the Application.

It is stated that Financial Creditor thereafter sanctioned loans to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,00,000 /- and Rs. 45,00,000/- on terms and conditions provided in the Loan Agreement dated 11.10.2018, and consequently granted loans to the tune of Rs. 2,87,50,000 /- from the period of 02.09.2020 to 27.06.2022 from the aforesaid sanctioned amounts.

Despite extending the loan repayment period as requested by the Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor started defaulting on its repayment schedule. Thereafter, the Financial Creditor vide its email dated 20.12.2023, called upon the Corporate Debtor to repay the outstanding loan amounts and vide various WhatsApp messages dated 05.02.2024 and 06.03.2024 and through various calls to the concerned person of the Corporate Debtor for repaying the outstanding loan amounts, there was no response received for the same. Therefore, despite giving repeated assurances, the Corporate Debtor has failed to make the required payments to the Financial Creditor. Copies of the said email dated 20.12.2023 and WhatsApp messages dated 05.02.2024 and 06.03.2024 are annexed as Exhibit “O” to the Application.

Thereafter, the Financial Creditor classified the account of the Corporate Debtor as Non-Performing Asset in the books of Financial Creditor on 31.03.2024.

Due to non-payment of outstanding principal amounts, the Financial Creditor issued a Legal Notice / Loan Recall Notice on 10.05.2024, for repayment outstanding amount i.e., Rs. 6,40,00,000/- along with interest as on 30.04.2024 of Rs. 3,29,59,286/-. However, no reply has been received from the Corporate Debtor till date. A copy of the said Legal Notice dated 10.05.2024 is annexed as Exhibit “P” to the Application.

The Financial Creditor, thereafter, filed a Company Petition under Section 7 of the Code, being C.P. (IB) / 723 (MB) of 2025, before this Tribunal. This Tribunal dismissed C.P. (IB) / 723 (MB) of 2025 as being not maintainable since it included part of sums in respect of which default had occurred during the period of moratorium under Section 10A of the Code. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Applicant to file a fresh Section 7 Application excluding the default amount under the Section 10A period. A copy of Order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Tribunal is annexed as Exhibit “Q” to the Application.

The Financial Creditor submits that in the facts and circumstances as set out hereinabove, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in the repayment of a financial debt; it is unable to pay off its debts arising in the usual and ordinary course of its business and has become commercially insolvent. In such circumstances, it is just, necessary and imperative that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process be initiated against the Corporate Debtor.

It is further submitted that a total sum of Rs. 6,32,50,000/- is outstanding towards principal amount for the three loans granted by the Financial Creditor. The interest due on these three loans as on 31.01.2026 is Rs. 5,16,84,581/-. Therefore, the total outstanding amount as on 31.01.2026 is Rs. 11,49,34,581/-.

However, after excluding the instalments which were due and payable during the period of moratorium under Section 10A of the Code, the total outstanding amount is Rs. 9,75,57,035/-.

The Financial Creditor reiterates that the exclusion of sums due during the Section 10A period is solely for the purposes of the present Application.

The Financial Creditor submits that two separate statements of computation, which are certified by the chartered accountant, are annexed as Exhibit “R” to the present Application. The first statement sets out the total amount due and payable by the Corporate Debtor along with interest as per the contractual terms. The second statement sets out the amount claimed in the present Application after excluding the instalments which fell due during the period prescribed under Section 10A of the Code. The present Application is confined to the amount reflected in the second statement.

The Corporate Debtor failed to pay the instalments as per the originally agreed repayment schedule. It sought extension of time from the Financial Creditor to repay the loan amounts, which was granted by the Financial Creditor. The Corporate Debtor failed to repay the loan even after seeking an extension. The date of default as per the extended date is 27.06.2023.

Particulars of security held are as under:

The Corporate Debtor has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 02.05.2026 affirmed by Mr. Aashok Laxminarayan Pande, Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor.

It is submitted that the present Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable, as the necessary authorisation to initiate the proceedings has not been granted. The Petition is therefore liable to be rejected on this ground alone. The institution of proceedings under the Code requires a specific and valid authorisation of the Board of Directors. Such authorisation must be evident from the record. A general or omnibus authorisation is insufficient. In the present case, the Board Resolution relied upon by the Applicant does not confer any specific authority to initiate insolvency proceedings under the Code. A bare perusal of the said resolution would show that it is vague, general in nature, and does not expressly empower the concerned individual to file an application under Section 7 before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

It is submitted that in the absence of a valid and specific authorisation, the present Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

It is submitted that the present Petition arises from the same financial transactions and claim which were the subject matter of the earlier Company Petition bearing C.P. (IB) No. 723 of 2025 filed by the Applicant against the Respondent. The said Petition was dismissed by this Tribunal after examining the record and holding that the claim included defaults falling within the period covered under Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The present Petition is based on the same loan account and underlying transactions.

It is also submitted that the amount now claimed under the present Petition still includes interest accrued during the period covered under Section 10A, and the non-payment of such interest forms part of the alleged default. The Petition fails to exclude the interest component that accrued during the period covered under Section 10A and on this ground alone the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

It is submitted that, as stated in Part IV of the Petition, the Petitioner has falsely alleged that an amount of INR 11,49,34,581/- is in default. The said amount is stated to comprise principal of INR 6,32,50,000/- and an interest component of INR 5,16,84,581/-. However, the Petition fails to disclose any clear basis or detailed computation for arriving at the said figures. Further, Exhibit R at page 238 of the Petition also reflects the same amounts. However, it appears from the calculations set out therein that the alleged amount in default includes interest accrued during the period covered under Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. For ready reference, a snapshot of page 238 of the Petition is reproduced hereinbelow.

In fact, the second statement at Exhibit R also includes interest accrued during the period covered under Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

It is submitted that the dismissal of the earlier Petition was not on a technical ground but on substantive findings, inter alia, that the Application was vitiated by inclusion of defaults falling within the period specified under Section 10A of the Code, that the Applicant had failed to properly segregate such defaults, and that the Application suffered from fundamental defects. The Applicant has filed the present Petition without curing the fundamental defects identified by this Tribunal in the earlier petition rendering the present petition also liable for rejection.

This Tribunal has categorically held that if an Application includes any default committed during the period covered under Section 10A, the same is not maintainable irrespective of whether the threshold requirement is otherwise satisfied.

This Tribunal has further recorded that defaults in the present case existed during the period from 25.03.2020 to 24.03.2021 and therefore fell squarely within the statutory bar under Section 10A of the Code.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's contention that the defaults occurred prior to the Section 10A period and further recorded that, despite being given an opportunity, the Applicant failed to amend the Application to segregate defaults falling within the Section 10A period.

It is submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kymal v/s. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. makes it clear that no application shall ever be filed for defaults occurring during the Section 10A period, and the bar is absolute.

It is submitted that the present Petition is an attempt to circumvent the statutory bar by artificially including certain amounts allegedly pertaining to the Section 10A period, which is impermissible in law.

The Petition is not maintainable as it suffers from fundamental defects in proving the debt, seeks to circumvent Section 10A by artificially splitting an indivisible financial arrangement, and is vitiated by the same defects that led to the dismissal of the earlier Petition, warranting its rejection with costs.

It is submitted that the Applicant has arbitrarily and without any basis alleged the date of default as 27.06.2023, without explaining how such date has been arrived at, particularly when the transactions between the parties span several years and involve multiple disbursements and alleged repayment obligations. It is submitted that the alleged date of default is wholly unsubstantiated and unexplained. It is further pertinent to note that the Petitioner itself has classified the account as NPA only on 31.03.2024, though the alleged date of default is stated to be much prior thereto. The inconsistency in the Applicant's own case demonstrates that the alleged date of default has been stated mechanically and without any proper basis.

It is submitted that this Tribunal has already recorded in the earlier order that the Applicant failed to satisfactorily establish the date of default, and the present Petition does not cure the said defect.

It is submitted that the amounts claimed by the Applicant are inconsistent, contradictory and unreliable. The Applicant has, at different stages, claimed varying figures towards principal and interest, and even in the earlier proceedings, had to revise the interest component, thereby demonstrating a lack of proper computation.

It is submitted that in the present Petition also, the claim amount has been arbitrarily computed and no proper working, statement of account or loan-wise breakup has been furnished.

The alleged claim includes excessive and inflated interest, without any clear contractual or mathematical basis, and the same is seriously disputed.

The Applicant has failed to place on record a complete and reliable statement of account, repayment schedule, or detailed calculation showing how the alleged liability has been arrived at.

The Petition is further defective inasmuch as the Applicant has failed to establish a legally valid and authenticated record of default, which is essential for maintaining a Petition under Section 7 of the Code.

It is submitted that the entire transaction between the parties reflects a continuing financial arrangement with ongoing dealings, disbursements and adjustments, and there is no crystallized or unequivocal default as alleged.

It is submitted that the Applicant has also suppressed material facts, including the complete nature of restructuring, adjustments and repayments, and has approached this Tribunal without full and candid disclosure.

It is submitted that the Loan Agreement dated 11.10.2018, together with all supplemental documents relied upon by the applicant, have been duly stamped and executed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The Respondent has not placed on record any material, expert evidence or specific computation to substantiate the alleged insufficiency of stamps duty. A bare assertion without supporting particulars cannot constitute a valid legal objection. It is further submitted that the Respondent has conspicuously not disputed the execution of the Loan Agreement dated 11.10.2018, or any of the other documents relied upon by the Applicant. The sole objection raised is to the alleged insufficiency of stamping, which has no basis whatsoever. It is a well settled proposition of law that in summary proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority is not required to embark upon an enquiry into the technical sufficiency of stamping of documents, particularly when the existence of debt and default is independently established from other admitted evidence on record. In any event, the existence of the financial debt and the occurrence of default are independently, sufficiently, and comprehensively established through multiple sources of corroborative evidence on record.

The present Application has been filed in the prescribed Form 1 as mandated under Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rule, 2016. Part IV of the Application clearly and completely sets out:

The Application is further supported by comprehensive documentary evidence. The Respondent’s contention that the Application is incomplete is ex facie incorrect and contrary to the record before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

It is submitted that the present Application was filed with the specific and valid authorization of the Board of Directors of the Applicant, Sachetna Finance Private Limited. A certified copy of the Board Resolution authorizing Mr. Sandeep Diddi to file and pursue proceedings on behalf of the Company before any tribunal or quasi-judicial body was duly filed as part of the present petition.

It is submitted that in order to remove any technical objection in this regard, the Applicant is filing herewith a fresh and additional Board Resolution of the Board of Directors of Sachetna Finance Private Limited, specifically and unambiguously authorizing Mr. Sandeep Diddi ratifying initiation, prosecution, and pursuing of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Shroff Textiles Limited under Section 7 of the Code. This Additional Board Resolution completely and conclusively negates the Respondent's objection at its root.

The Respondent's elaborate plea on Section 10A of the Code is patently incorrect, misleading, and is squarely contradicted by the record.

The date of default of 27.06.2023, is not arbitrary -it is specifically, precisely, and founded on the extended repayment schedule agreed to by the Financial Creditor.

The entire loan disbursal history, repayment schedule, and computation of the outstanding amounts are set out in complete detail in the Application and are supported by comprehensive documentary evidence including Federal Bank statements (Exhibit 'A'), Federal Bank certificate (Exhibit 'B'), CIBIL Report dated 27.02.2026 (Exhibit 'U'), and the CA-certified computation statements (Exhibit 'R').

The Applicant has placed before this Tribunal all relevant and material documents, including the complete history of the loan transactions, all communications between the parties, the Earlier Order dated January 29, 2026, computation statements certified by an independent Chartered Accountant, and the Record of Financial Information filed with the Information Utility.

The Applicant adopts the submissions made in above paragraphs and the same are not repeated for sake of brevity. The allegation that the present Petition is an "abuse of process" and is a "coercive measure" is baseless and is deprecated in the strongest possible terms.

It is the Corporate Debtor that has acted in bad faith. Despite the Applicant extending the repayment timeline and accommodating the Corporate Debtor's own written requests for rescheduling, the Corporate Debtor has failed to repay the outstanding principal.

The Financial Creditor has reiterated the facts in the Written Statement. For the sake of brevity, the same are not repeated here.

The Corporate Debtor has reiterated the facts in the Written Statement. For the sake of brevity, the same are not repeated here.

We have heard both the Ld. Counsels and perused the documents available on record. Our findings in the matter are as under:-

Respondent’s Objections are dealt with in the following paragraphs:

It is correct that the Application refers to a total contractual outstanding amount of Rs.11,49,34,581/-, comprising principal of Rs.6,32,50,000/- and interest of Rs.5,16,84,581/-, while the amount claimed after exclusion of the Section 10A period is stated to be Rs.9,75,57,035/-. The Financial Creditor has explained that the former represents the overall contractual liability whereas the latter represents the amount actually pressed in the present Application after giving effect to the Section 10A exclusion.

Applicant has placed at page no. 98 of the application the audited financial statements of the CD where loan of Rs. 5,70,62,263/- is shown from the applicant under the heading long term borrowing. The last payment was done by the CD some time in the year 2025.

In our view the applicant has placed all the necessary evidence to support that it has advanced an interest-bearing loan which is presently under default for an amount exceeding Rs. 1 Crore as prescribed under Section 4 of IBC, 2016.

The application is complete as all the required information has been provided in the Application and all the required documents have been attached.

Further, this Tribunal has relied on the judgment in the matter of Power Trust (Promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) v. Bhuvan Madan, IRP of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd. and Ors. Civil Appeal No(s). 2211/2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while examining the validity of the admission of the Corporate Debtor to CIRP held that in a Section 7 Application the Adjudicating Authority has only to determine whether a default exceeding the threshold has taken place or not and based on the said determination, it has to either accept or reject the said Application. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder :-

(emphasis wherever required supplied)

To summarize the above judgment, we observe as under:-

a. The Code prescribes whenever a corporate debtor defaults on a debt that is due and payable, an insolvency process may be initiated. Section 3(12) defines “default” as non-payment of a debt which has become due and payable, and includes default in respect of a part or instalment thereof.

b. When the financial creditor initiates the insolvency process for the purposes of admission, the Adjudicating Authority is only to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or the evidence furnished by the financial creditor within fourteen days from the receipt of such application. At this stage, neither is a corporate debtor entitled nor is the Adjudicating Authority required to examine any dispute regarding the existence of such debt. This significantly reduces the scope of enquiry at the stage of a time-bound admission of an insolvency process by a financial creditor.

c. The adjudicating authority is empowered only to verify whether a default has occurred or if a default has not occurred. Based upon its decision, the adjudicating authority must then either admit or reject an application, respectively. These are the only two courses of action which are open to the adjudicating authority in accordance with Section 7(5).

d. The Adjudicating Authority is not required to go into the inability of a corporate debtor to pay its debt.

e. The Code restricts the scope of enquiry for admission of an insolvency process by a financial creditor merely to the existence of default of a debt due and payable and nothing more.

Applying the ratio of Power Trust (supra), we are of the view that, the applicant has advanced a financial debt, which is in default for an amount exceeding Rs. 1 Crore. The applicant has placed necessary proof being record of default issued by the information utility, which clearly indicates that the debt is in default. In terms of the above we are forced to order commencement of CIRP on the Corporate Debtor Shroff Textiles Limited.

Financial Creditors have also proposed the name of an Insolvency Professional i.e. Mr. Hemant J. Mehta a registered Insolvency Professional having Registration Number IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00027/2016-17/10060 and e-mail address hemant@apmh.in having valid Authorisation for Assignment up to 30.06.2027 as per IBBI portal and as per the Form 2 attached along with the Application, no disciplinary proceedings are going on against the said IP.

Further, this Application is complete as all the required documents have been attached along with the Application. Accordingly, the present Application is fit for admission under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.

We make it clear that at this stage we have not crystallised the amount as claimed in this Application; the same is left to be collated by the IRP.

In view of the aforesaid findings, Application bearing C.P.(IB) No.304/MB/2026 filed under Section 7 of the Code by Sachetna Finance Private Limited, the Applicant, for initiating CIRP in respect of Shroff Textiles Limited, the Corporate Debtor is hereby admitted.

We further declare moratorium under Section 14 of the Code with consequential directions as mentioned below: -