SREI Equipment Finance Limited vs Rankini Power Generation Private Limited

a. That the present Company Petition has been preferred under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by SREI Equipment Finance Limited, the Financial Creditor (FC in short), against Rankini Power Generation Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor CD in short), seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor.

b. Financial Creditor claims that pursuant to a Sanction Letter dated 15.10.2018, a loan facility of Rs. 690 Crores was sanctioned in favour of the Corporate Debtor, subject to certain terms and conditions, and subsequently a Rupee Loan Agreement dated 31.10.2018 was executed between the parties.

c. Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, the repayment schedule contemplated a moratorium period of ten years from the date of first disbursement. The first disbursement was made on 19.03.2019.

d. Financial Creditor claims that despite repeated requests and reminders, the Corporate Debtor failed to service the interest and other dues payable under the Financing Documents as a result the account of the Corporate Debtor was declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.09.2021.

e. Financial Creditor claims that the date of default as 30.06.2021, and the outstanding financial debt as Rs. 1184,02,61,353/-. On the basis of the alleged default, the present petition has been filed.

In the course of arguments Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Jain appearing for the Financial Creditor would submit as follows:

a. The Financial Creditor duly sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount to the Corporate Debtor, which constitutes a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code.

b. Under Clause 2.1.2 of the Loan Agreement, non-payment of interest or any other monies payable constitutes “an event of default”.

c. That interest was payable on a quarterly basis and that the Corporate Debtor failed to make timely payment of interest, thereby committing default.

d. As a result the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 30.09.2021.

e. The default would be clearly evidenced from the records, statements of account, and certificates placed on record.

f. Despite issuance of notices and recall of the loan, the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the outstanding dues.

g. Thus a “financial debt” and a “default in repayment” stand established

h. The threshold is met. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be admitted.

Per Contra the respondent on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, Learned Senior Counsel Mr Joy Saha, would submit as follows:

a. CP IS NOT MAINTAINABLE – APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 66 OF IBC PENDING IN RESPECT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION: It is submitted that the petitioner, the Financial Creditor through its Administrator Mr. Rajneesh Sharma has filed IA No. 1691 of 2022 in CP No. 294 of 2021 under the provision of Section 66 of the IBC praying inter alia as follows: -

In the said IA No. 1691 of 2022 it has been specifically contended by the Administrator that the transactions between the financial creditor SREI and the corporate debtor Rankini Power are fraudulent in nature. Reliance has been placed on the following portions of IA No. 1691 of 2022:-

Para 32 – Utilization of Loan for giving advances to connected customer of SEFL/SIFL.

The case of the petitioner is that the account has been declared as non-performing assets (for short “NPA”) on 30^th September, 2021, whereas, at paragraph 30 of the Section 66 application being I.A. No. 1691/KB of 2022, the petitioner has pleaded that the account was categorized as sub-standard as on 30^th September, 2021. There can be no basis for such purported categorization as admittedly principal and accrued interest has not fallen due.

Para 36 – Corporate Debtor is the sole lender to Rankini which had poor internal Rating and no external rating.

It is stated that the BDO report, on a review of Rankini’s financial statements, observes that SIFL was the sole lender to Rankini. The fact that no other bank/financial institution has lent funds to Rankini appears to be unusual and raises concerns on the credit worthiness of Rankini. Rankini was in a weak financial position and even then, was given a loan at favourable interest terms and unusually long moratorium without any commercial rationale.

It stated that at the time of proposal evaluation of the loan, no External Ratings were sought, and the Internal Rating of Rankini was SREI 8, i.e. Poor credit quality.

Therefore, it appears that there was no adequate risk management while sanctioning the loan to Rankini and the grant of the loan was without any commercial basis.

Para 37 – Inadequate Security Coverage.

It is submitted that the BDO report, on exhaustive assessment, suggests that the security cover for the loan was found to be inadequate.”

It is further stated that on a review of the loan proposal, it was noted that the condition of personal/corporate guarantee and promoters’ undertaking was waived off and the rationale for the same was not available in the loan proposal. Therefore, since the value of outstanding loan is more than the scrutiny, the scrutiny provided is clearly inadequate.

Para 38 – Weak Financial Position of Rankini

The BDO report observes that loan was sanctioned to Rankini in October 2018 even though Rankini had no income from operations and had negligible net worth. Till the F.Y. 2019-2020, as there was no revenue generation from the acquisition of plan, the sanctioning of loan for an asset which was non-operational for 5 years appears to be questionable in nature.

Para 39- “Unusual Debt Assignment and Restructuring”

Para 40 to 44 – The Loan granted to Rankini constitutes fraudulent/wrongful trading and attracts Section 66 of the Code.

The BDO report suggests that

Placing the above it is contended that the financial creditor cannot on one hand, in IA No. 1691 of 2022 in CP No. 294 of 2021 contend that the transactions in question are fraudulent in nature and that the same should be set aside and on the other hand institute the present company petition on the basis of the same fraudulent transactions contending that the corporate debtor be admitted to insolvency for alleged default in payment of the transactions which the petitioner itself had declared to be fraudulent as such completely contradictory and opposing stand taken by the petitioner in IA No. 1961 of 2022 and CP No. 67 of 2025 are in the teeth of the principles against approbation and reprobation. A litigant cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same transaction.

b. Round Tripping

The entire case of the petitioner in IA No. 1691 of 2022 is that the loan allegedly granted by the petitioner to the CD was siphoned off by the petitioner itself from the CD by making wrongful, illegal, fraudulent and preferential payment to related and/or connected parties of the petitioner.

Thus, the alleged loans purportedly granted by the petitioner to the CD were re-routed back to the petitioner through related and/or connected of the petitioner.

Which allegation has no rebuttal.

I. That, the account was allegedly classified as NPA on 30^th September, 2021 (Pg 11 of CP).

II. Thae date of default is on 30^th June 2021 (Pg 14 of CP).

III. There was no intimation of the account being allegedly classified as NPA by FC on 30^th September 2021. No proof of any such intimation has been furnished.

IV. FC received payment from CD towards interest till July 2022 (Pg 12 of CP).

V. The first Information of the account being NPA is contained in Section 13(2) SARFAESI Notice dated 5^th November 2024 (Pg 357 CP).

VI. In Para 30 of IA No. 1691 of 2022 (Pg 25, of supplementary affidavit) the FC contended that the account was categorized as sub-standard on 30^th September 2021. In the circumstances the said account could not have been classified to be NPA on 30^th September, 2021.

It is alleged that the Financial Creditor is conspicuous by its silence on the above allegation.

It is alleged that the petition has been affirmed by one Mr. Shounak Chatterjee claiming to be the Chief Manager of the FC. He has relied upon a Power of Attorney (page 22 of CP) given to him to show that he is authorized to affirm the said petition, and a purported Board Resolution dated 28^th March, 2024 (page 27 of CP). From the Board Resolution it appears that the CEO of the company is authorized, inter alia, to execute/issue Power of Attorney for an on behalf of the company in favour of any employee of the company for all legal matters. The Board Resolution does not authorize Mr. Shounak Chatterjee in any manner whatsoever. Whereas the power of Attorney dated 16^th April, 2024 shows that one Mr. Shamik Roy claiming to be the Chief Executive Officer of the company has given Power of Attorney to Mr. Shounak Chatterjee to file the petition for SEFL. As such, it is evident that it is a case of sub-delegation. The FC is company. As such, it can authorize any person to act on its behalf only through its broad resolution. Reference is made to Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 266, paragraphs 36 to 38, & para 43 – 45, that a power of attorney holder is not empowered to file application under Section 7 of IBC. Only an authorized officer, who was authorized to sanction a loan and had done so, can file or affirm a section 7 petition.

It is further argued that in the present case, the loan has been sanctioned by SIFL which is a different juristic entity. It is not the case of the petitioner that Mr. Shounak Chatterjee was the authorized officer who had sanctioned the loan. As such, he cannot affirm the petition and the petition must fail on the ground of lack of authorization. Reference is to that effect made to Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr. Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain & Anr. Reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 843, para 12.

It is submitted that the FC has also filed a commercial suit being M.S. (Com.) 22 of 2025, inter alia, against CD on the self-same cause of action before the Learned Commercial Court at Rajarhat for a money decree of Rs. 1184,02,61353/- together with interest and injunction as such, the issues raised in the petition can only be decided by a civil court having jurisdiction. On the said proposition CD has relied upon the following judgments:

I. Aruna Oswal Vs. Pankaj Oswal & Ors. Reported in (2020) 8 SCC 79 (paragraph 27 to 29)

II. Nimmi Oberoi & Ors. Vs. Elgin Hotels Private Limited & Ors. NCLT Kolkata Bench Judgment 20.12.2024 (paragraph 14 to 22).

It is claimed that in view of the pleadings made by the FC in the Section 66 application being I.A. No. 1691 of 2022 contending that the said loan transaction is fraudulent and thus null and void, the FC is estopped from making out a different case in the IBC proceeding. On the proposition of “judicial estoppel”, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:

I. Amar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 69] (Paragraph 50).

II. Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots Association of India Vs. DG of Civil Aviation [(2011) 5 SCC 435 paragraph 12].

III. Shri Surendra Nayak Vs. AM Mohammad Shafi, by Karnataka High Court [2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8345].

IV. Court of Appeals of Minnesota United States of America in the case of Port Authority St. Paul Vs. Keith T. and Dance N. Harstad.

It is argued that under Section 7 of IBC there has to be a “debt” and “default” and “debt” to be recovered has to be a legally recoverable debt. Under Section 7, no admission order can be passed on a transaction which according to the FC himself is illegal and fraudulent. The CD has placed reliance on the definitions of “claim” in Section 3(6); “debt” in Section 3(11) of IBC, as in the following decisions:

I. Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr. Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain & Anr. [(2022) 5 SCC 600, para 24] (legally recoverable debt.).

II. M/s. Meek Pharmaceutical and Chemical Private Limited Vs. M/s. Accurate Infrabuilt Private Limited, Hon’ble NCLAT Principal Bench judgment dated 29.10.2025 in Company Appeal (AT.) (Insolvency) No. 544 of 2024 (para 15 & 16).

It is the further contention of the CD that the FC, SEFL entered into BTA with its wholly owned subsidiary SIFL in the year 2019. However, the same was given effect to by the lenders as recorded in the CIRP orders passed by this Tribunal of the FC herein. The FC itself has admitted the fact that SIFL and SEFL has disbursed loan to the CD. In view thereof, after an internal arrangement, SIFL could not have disbursed loan to CD. Therefore, the FC (SEFL) has no locus standi to file the present application.

It is urged that there is no default on the part of the CD. To substantiate, attention is drawn to the sanction letter issued by the Financial Creditor dated 15^th October 2018 (pg 52 and Pg 54 of CP) which provides as follows: -

Placing above, it is vociferously contended that there was a moratorium on the repayment of both the principal and interest for a period of 10 years.

Further it is submitted that the repayment as such would commence from 2024. Hence, there is no “default” the repayment of the interest was to commence immediately upon disbursement as has been wrongly contended in part-IV of the Form, which is “Outstanding Balance as on 30^th September, 2024 on amount claimed to be in default as Rs. 13,24,73,602 (Rupees Thirteen crores twenty-four lakhs seventy-three thousand six hundred and two only) being the interest overdue and payable by the Corporate Debtor.” That the CD has already repaid a sum far in excess thereof as per particulars given as under:-

Thus, it is contended that there is no debt or default.

It is argued that the Financial Creditor has failed to disclose any document to demonstrate that the loan amount of Rs. 69 crores have been disbursed in favour of Corporate Debtor, The Financial Creditor has merely relied upon a chart at Page 145 of the Petition wherein particulars of alleged disbursement are given without any proof of actual disbursement thereof. The case of SEFL is that the financial debt stood assigned from SIFL to SEFL/ Financial Creditor herein vide the business transfer agreement. No copy of the business transfer agreement is annexed to the petition nor is there any proof that post October 1, 2019, disbursement has been made by SEFL to CD. As such the case of SEFL is that it is assignee of the loan is to be disbelieved. SEFL has no locus to file the present petition.

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Jain heavily relies upon the decision of New Era Propcon Private Limited v.SREI Equipment Finance Limited [ 2024 SCC Online NCLAT 1551], to contend that pendency of an application under Section 66 will have no bearing in the present case.

In course or arguments Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joy Saha would distinguish the decision in New Era Propcon Private Limited v.SREI Equipment Finance Limited [ 2024 SCC Online NCLAT 1551] Learned Senior Counsel would vehemently deny that the decision would lend any support, and that the said case is completely distinguishable from the present case due to reason furnished inter alia, as follows:

a. In the said case the appellant was not even a shareholder of the corporate debtor and thus it was held that it had no right to question the admission order passed under Section 7.

b. In the said matter the appellant offered to clear and/or repay the debt by making payment of Rs. 2999 crores. Hence, debt and default was admitted.

c. In the said present case the corporate debtor does not admit that any money is due by it to the financial creditor and has never offered to repay any part and portion of the said claim.

d. In the said case a settlement award in the arbitration proceedings between the parties had been passed. In the present case there is no settlement award between the parties.

e. In the present case there is no debt and consequently no default in that it is the specific case of the petitioner itself in IA No. 1691 of 2022 that the transaction was round tripped and the money brought into the corporate debtor was again taken out by making fraudulent payment to alter egos and/or connected and/or related companies of the financial creditor.

f. In the said case the appellant had filed an application for intervention at a belated stage while in the present case the CD itself is opposing any admission into insolvency.

g. In the said case the appellant had entered into a Share purchase agreement to acquire certain shares of the CD which had not fructified. In the present case the challenge to the petition under Section 7 is not by any individual nor by any shareholder but by the CD itself.

The present Petition being filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, at the stage of admission, this Adjudicating Authority is required to determine the following:

Whether there exists a genuine financial debt;

Whether default has occurred; and threshold is met;

Whether the application is complete and filed within the prescribe limitation period.

a. The Financial Creditor has relied upon a Sanction Letter dated 15.10.2018 and a Rupee Loan Agreement dated 31.10.2018 under which a facility of Rs. 690 Crores was admittedly sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor.

b. The disbursement of funds pursuant to the said agreement is not specifically denied by the Corporate Debtor but that the funds have been transferred to alter egos of SEFL/SIFL shown as after 10 years with interest.

c. Creation of charge have not been specifically denied.

d. It is not in dispute that the loan sanctioned and disbursed had to be repaid and with interest

e. The CD has admitted repayment of Rs. 79 crores and odds towards interest.

f. Hence, the transaction squarely falls within the definition of “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the Code, being money disbursed against consideration for the time value of money.

a. The Financial Creditor would contend that quarterly interest payments were due and payable and non-payment thereof constituted an event of default under Clause 2.1.2 of the Loan Agreement, that the account was classified as NPA on 30.09.2021 and recall notices were issued.

b. Whereas the Corporate Debtor would argue that the Loan Agreement expressly provides for a ten-year moratorium from the date of first disbursement, i.e., 19.03. 2019.The moratorium would continue till and therefore neither principal nor interest had fallen due as on 30.06.2021. Hence default is not established.

c. Therefore, the pivotal issue is whether the alleged default dated 30.06.2021 stands established. Here, the clauses of the agreements would be very relevant.

d. Relevant clauses of the Rupee Loan Agreement:

e. This Adjudicating Authority has carefully perused the pleadings and the relevant contractual clauses placed on record. It appears from careful perusal of the clause 2.5.1 above of the loan agreement shows that interest on the loan will accrue from the date of the disbursement by way of cheque demand draft or debit from the account of lender. Thus it seems that interest was payable quarterly notwithstanding the moratorium from the very date of disbursement. As evident from the records, the CD also has started repayment on quarterly basis shortly after the date of disbursement

f. The “Interest Repayment Clause”, probably to acknowledge its liability to service interest immediately after disbursement as relied upon by the Corporate Debtor, to contend that interest payment fell due after moratorium or that the clause contemplates deferment of repayment obligations for ten years from first disbursement, could not be countenanced given the clause 2.5.1 of payment schedule of the CD.

g. Further, the Sanction letter dated 15.10.2018 (Annexure D) contains the following terms; as reproduced verbatim hereunder for clarity:

h. Although the Sanction Letter does not clearly specify payment of interest after 10 years moratorium rather it clearly provides for interest payable quarterly, principal repayable after 10 years and repayment of outstanding principal of the loan at any point of time before repayment date. The CD claims that although not due, the repayment of Rs. 79 crores and odds have been done towards interest due.

The Financial Creditor has however not produced any contemporaneous demand letter prior to June 2021 specifically invoking interest payment obligations in a manner consistent with the alleged quarterly schedule.

j. But the financial Creditor has also produced a payment schedule and according to the FC the default was of Rs. 13 crores.

k. Thus, the Corporate Debtor having unequivocally admitted that payments aggregating approximately Rs. 79.60 Crores were made till July 2022, has categorically acknowledged its liability to pay interest before the principal payment fell due. The Financial Creditor has however not placed a detailed statement reconciling the outstanding amount after giving credit to such payments, but that does not wipe away the liability of the CD to Service interest even during the Moratorium

l. The Corporate Debtor has heavily relied upon classification of the account as NPA on 30.09.2021 and has treated it as wrongful. It is settled law that classification as NPA is a relevant factor but not determinative. The Adjudicating Authority must independently assess whether debt had become due.

m. The Corporate Debtor however contends that no prior intimation of NPA was issued and that contradictory stand was taken in IA No. 1691/KB/2022.

n. However, NESL records established the debt as due on 30/06/2021.

Since, the present CP is filed and the transaction seems genuine and has also been partly repaid, Section 66 seems to have no effect. Pendency of a petition under Section 66 of the IBC against the CD in a CP connected to the insolvency proceedings of SREI group will have no bearing as in the present case a genuine “debt and default” is established, the CD has admitted its liability to repay the FC.

However the admission of Section 7 of petition may have an impact as the pending PUFE application against the present Corporate Debtor.

a. The CD has questioned validity of authorization to the instant CP. We note that Mr Shamik Roy the CEO has been authorized by way of Board Resolution (Page 27) to delegate his authority, a copy of the Board Resolution reads as under:

b. Further Shamik Roy has delegated this authorization to Mr. Shouak Chatterjee the Chief Manager as evident from records.

c. Upon examination of the Board Resolution and Power of Attorney placed on record, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Petition has been instituted by an authorized representative.

This objection, therefore, does not stand.

We have already the detailed contractual terms and their intermediation and considered allegations of fraudulent structuring, which are best adjudicated in a civil forum. However, debt and default stands established, hence quantum of debt being subject better of commercial suit have no relevance in the present case. Moreover, a pre-existing dispute or pendency of suit will have no impact a petition under Section 7 of IBC. The right of a Financial Creditor to initiate CIPR against a Corporate Debtor is independent and unaffected by any ongoing suits or even proceedings under DRT.

In the case of Karan Goel v. Pashupati Jewellers & Anr [2019] 156 SCL 653 (NCLAT) the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. & Ors [(2021) ibclaw.in 25] held that:

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court while deciding State Bank of India vs M/S Patel Engineering Limited [COMAP No. 372 of 2024], this is an appeal arising from an order passed by the Hon’ble Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court), in this impugned order, the Hon’ble Commercial Court had restrained SBI from proceeding in respect of the Respondent’s corporate guarantee till the disposal of the suit. In the meantime, SBI had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal. It had, prior to the initiation of the suit, also issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, demanding the amounts claimed from PEL as a guarantor. In view of the impugned order, SBI is precluded from pursuing its petition before the NCLT or under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of the amounts claimed by it. The court held that:

The alleged date of default is 30.06.2021. The present Petition filed in 2025, barring the excluded period under Suo Motu decision, of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application appears to be filed within three years. Hence, the petition is not barred by limitation.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Adjudicating Authority holds that the Financial Creditor has been succeeded in establishing occurrence of default within the meaning of Section 3(12) of the Code.

Accordingly, the Petition Company Petition (IB) No. 67/KB/2025 meets the threshold for admission under Section 7 and is therefore admitted.

a. In terms of the foregoing discussion, we ALLOW the petition bearing Company Petition (IB) No. NO. 67/KB/2025 filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, and accordingly, we order the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) in respect of the Corporate Debtor by the following Orders:

b. The Petition filed by SREI Equipment Finance Limited (Financial Creditors, under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is hereby, ADMITTED for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of Rankini Power Generation Private Limited (Corporate Debtor).

c. As a consequence of this Petition being admitted in terms of Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, 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.

d. Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 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;]

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. The Applicant has proposed the name of Mr. Bijay Murmuria, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-00007/2016-17/10026(Email ID: [email protected] (the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”). We have perused that there is a written communication and consent of IRP in Form- 2 with Declaration, annexed at pages 481-490, as per the requirement of Rule 9(l) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. In addition, further necessary disclosures have been made by “Mr. Bijay Murmuria” as per the requirement of the IBBI Regulations. Accordingly, he satisfies the requirement of Section 7(3)(b) of the code. Hence, we appoint “Mr. Bijay Murmuria” as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor to carry out the functions as per the IBC 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. The Registration Certificate of the IP is valid upto 31.12.2026 as reflected on the IBBI Website.

h. 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 IBC, 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 CIRP 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 IBC, 2016. 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.

j. 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.

k. 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.

l. The Financial Creditors shall be liable to pay to IRP a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 /-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) as payment to meet the cost of CIRP arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims etc., 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).

m.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.

n. 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), Kolkata to whom the company is registered with, by all available means for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor.

o. 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.

p. 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.

q. The order of moratorium shall cease to have effect as per Section 14(4) of the I&B Code.