State Bank Of India vs Asian Business Connections Pvt. Ltd.

Per: - Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial)

The instant Petition has been filed by the Financial Creditor i.e. State Bank of India under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) against Asian Business Connections Private Limited (‘the Corporate Debtor’) for default of an outstanding amount of Rs. 2769,18,40,353.24 (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-Nine Crores Eighteen Lakhs Forty Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Three and Twenty-Four Paisa Only).

The averments and submissions made by the Financial Creditor are summarised as under: - 2.1 The Financial Creditor submits that it was approached by the Principal Borrower viz. Advantage Overseas Private Limited (“Personal Borrower”) for availment of financial facilities, in circa November, 2012. Pursuant to the same, a Letter of Arrangement dated 15.03.2013 was executed inter alia between the Financial Creditor and the Principal Borrower, on the basis of which, the latter was granted facilities to the tune of INR 10,00,00,000 (Rupees Ten-crores only; "Initial Facility"). As against the said Initial Facility, an Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation dated 23.03.2013 and a Guarantee Agreement dated 23.03.2013 were duly executed between the Financial Creditor and the Personal Borrower.

To secure the amounts granted under the Initial Facility, a Guarantee Agreement was executed on 23.03.2013 in favour of the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Personal Borrower approached the Financial Creditor for enhancement of the said Initial Facility and pursuant to the same, a Letter of Arrangement dated 17.12.2014 was executed whereby the said Initial Facility was increased to an aggregate amount of INR 51,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-one crores only; "Revised Facility"). As against the said Revised Facility, a Loan Agreement dated 29.12.2014 was duly executed. To secure the amounts granted under the Revised Facility, the following documents were executed: 2.2.1 Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods and Assets executed by the Personal Borrower in favour of Financial Creditor. 2.2.2 3 (three) Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit executed by Directors of Personal Borrower.

Deed of Guarantee for Overall Limit ("Original Guarantee") executed by M/s. Asian Business Connections Private Limited ("ABCPL"/ "Corporate Debtor"). 2.3 Further, the Financial Creditor submits that it was approached by the Personal Borrower seeking a renewal and an enhancement in the said Revised Facility. Accordingly, a Letter of Arrangement was issued by the Financial Creditor dated 07.04.2016 ("Facility") to the Personal Borrower, sanctioning facilities aggregating to INR 6249.50 Crores. It is pertinent to note that the aforementioned Letter of Arrangement was not only executed by the Personal Borrower but also executed by the Corporate Debtor. 2.4 A Board Resolution dated 02.05.2016 was thereby passed by Directors of the Corporate Debtor to the effect of extending the Corporate Guarantee as against the said Facility in favour of the Financial Creditor herein. Subsequently, the Deed of Guarantee dated 12.05.2016 was executed as against the afore-mentioned Facility by the Corporate Debtor. To secure the amounts granted under the Facility, the following documents were executed: 2.4.1 Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods and Assets executed by the Personal Borrower in favour of Financial Creditor. 2.4.2 3 (three) Supplemental Deeds of Guarantee for Overall Limit executed by Directors of Personal Borrower.

Supplemental Deed of Guarantee for Overall Limit (“Supplemental Guarantee”) executed by M/s. Asian Business Connections Private Limited (“ABCPL”).

Furthermore, a Mortgage was created on immovable properties of the Personal Borrower and the Corporate Debtor, to secure repayment of the Facility.

The Financial Creditor submits that a Revival Letter dated 30.11.2017 was executed by the Personal Borrower and the Corporate Debtor, expressly admitting that (i) the Personal Borrower was in receipt of amount extended under the Facility; (ii) the said amount was secured by a guarantee extended by the Corporate Debtor; (iii) the Personal Borrower and the Corporate Debtor acknowledge their liability towards the Financial Creditor; and (iv) the Personal Borrower and the Corporate Debtor acknowledged that they were liable to the Financial Creditor for the payment of all outstanding amounts with interest costs, charges and expenses and other monies due in relation to the Facility.

The Financial Creditor submits that the Personal Borrower failed to comply with the terms of the Facility and on account of its inability to repay the amounts due under the NFB WC (LC) Limit for Merchant Trading Facility and under the NFB Credit Exposure Limit for Merchanting Trade; the Loan Account of Personal Borrower was classified as NPA w.e.f. 08.08.2018. Pursuant to which, various letters were sent by the Personal Borrower acknowledging its liability and assurance(s) to settle the outstanding dues thereof. The Financial Creditor however submits that, the Personal Borrower failed to do so.

Consequently, the Financial Creditor sent two notices (“Invocation Notices”) to the Personal Borrower and the Corporate Debtor as mentioned hereinafter:

The Financial Creditor submits that neither of the afore-mentioned two notices were responded to, nor were the outstanding dues cleared. Pursuant to which, O.A. No. 107 of 2019 (“OA”) was filed by the Financial Creditor inter alia against the Corporate Debtor and Personal Borrower before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (“DRT”) u/s. 19 of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for recovery of an amount of INR 1408,57,30,754/-.

During pendency of the said OA, Personal Borrower sent two letters to the Financial Creditor, dated 11.03.2020 and 05.05.2020, requesting for settlement of its dues. Subsequently, the Financial Creditor vide Letter dated 05.09.2020, provided a One Time Settlement Offer (“OTS”) to the Personal Borrower whereby the outstanding amount was proposed to be paid in 04 (four) tranches across a period of 03 (three) years, amounting to a compromise amount of INR 425 Crores. Board Resolutions of the Personal Borrower and Corporate Debtor dated 15.09.2020 were consequently passed to the same effect. An Undertaking dated 11.05.2021 was consequently issued by the Corporate Debtor and others in compliance with the terms of the proposed OTS.

The Financial Creditor further submits that an Application was filed jointly between the parties for a Consent Decree to be passed by the DRT in the said OA. Pursuantly, a Judgement was passed by the DRT dated 26.04.2022, wherein it was agreed that the Defendants to OA (which included the Personal Borrower and Corporate Debtor) would pay an amount of INR 425 Crores to the Financial Creditor. Additionally, the said Judgement by DRT recorded that (i) the counter-claim filed inter alia by the Personal Borrower would stand withdrawn and the same would not be revived in event of any failure; and (ii) in event of failure to adhere to the terms of the OA, the entire outstanding amount would be payable.

The Financial Creditor submits that on failure of realization of aforesaid terms recorded in the said Judgement by DRT dated 26.04.2022; It sent a Legal Notice to the Personal Borrower, Corporate Debtor and other Guarantors dated 02.01.2023, highlighting the entire outstanding amount becoming due and payable on account of Personal Borrower's and the Corporate Debtor failure to clear the outstanding amount and its failure to abide by the terms of the said OTS.

It is also pertinent to note that the outstanding amount has been acknowledged by the Borrower, in its financial accounts ending on 31.03.2019 and 31.03.2020. Further, it is contended by the Financial Creditor the acknowledgement in the financial accounts has extended the period of limitation.

In light of the aforesaid submissions, the Financial Creditor contends that till date the Corporate Debtor has failed to repay the outstanding dues and has thus breached the terms of the Facility. Hence, the present Petition.

The Corporate Debtor submits that the Petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands and submits as follows:-

The Petitioner has miserably failed to qualify its alleged financial debt within the parameters laid down under the provisions of IBC. The present petition has been filed against the Respondent in respect of an alleged Corporate Guarantee dated 12.05.2016 which has lapsed and thus comes to an end and is therefore not valid and subsisting anymore. Furthermore, there exists no valid invocation notice in respect of the alleged Corporate Guarantee.

At the outset, the Respondent herein viz. Corporate Debtor disputes the Financial Creditor's averments with regards to the nature of financial assistance involved herein and submits that the commercial dealings between the said parties were for the benefit of the Financial Creditor itself involving an arrangement regarding truncation of Deposits made by the Principal Borrower pursuant to its merchanting trade operations.

The Corporate Debtor submits that the Date of Default mentioned in the Legal Notice issued by the Financial Creditor dated 02.01.2023, is 04.03.2021 which falls within the moratorium period as notified u/s. 10A of the IBC, 2016 and is thereby barred under the same. The Corporate Debtor further submits that no notice has been issued to it on or after the alleged Date of Default i.e., 04.03.2021 for invocation of the Corporate Guarantee dated 12.05.2016.

The Corporate Debtor submits that the said Corporate Guarantee dated 12.05.2016, upon which the Financial Creditor has placed reliance on, is no longer valid or subsisting as it has neither been renewed nor revived after the OTS dated 05.09.2020 was entered into. Additionally, the Corporate Debtor submits that the default as recorded under the said OTS was superseded by the Consent Decree dated 26.04.2022 passed by the DRT and that, there is no provision in the said Consent Decree for revival or extension of the said Corporate Guarantee.

The Corporate Debtor contends that the two Invocation Notices sent by the Financial Creditor, dated 07.12.2018 and 07.01.2019, do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirements of Invocation of a Guarantee and, are time barred by Law of Limitation. The Corporate Debtor further contends that the afore-mentioned Invocation Notices are much prior to both, the OTS dated 05.09.2020 and the Consent Decree dated 26.04.2022, and as such have automatically lapsed and thereby have no validity in the eyes of law. 3.6 The aforementioned invocation notices annexed to the Petition do not satisfy any legal requirements of a valid notice for invocation of guarantee. Moreover, the said invocation notices are not even addressed to the Respondent. There is no valid invocation of Corporate Guarantee and there is no cause of action. 3.7 The Respondent submits that in Corporate Guarantee dated 10.01.2015 and 12.05.2016, clause 20 specifically states that the Financial Creditor is obligated to serve a Demand Notice upon the Respondent. The Petitioner has not served any notice to the Respondent invoking the guarantee after the alleged default by the principal borrower. Therefore, the said invocation notices do not satisfy the requirements under clause 20 of the Corporate Guarantee dated 12.05.2016.

It is well-settled legal position that the liability of a Corporate Guarantee arises only when the guarantee is validly invoked and a valid demand as contemplated is law and under the contract has been made. The obligation to pay of the guarantor cannot arise unless there is an occurrence of event of default and unless notice as required under the contract of guarantee is served upon the guarantor.

The Corporate Debtor further submits that in addition to the non-fulfilment of terms in OTS dated 05.09.2020 by the Financial Creditor; the Date of Default relied upon by the Financial Creditor is ex facie an incorrect date and the true nature of transactions in relation to the financial/ credit facilities has been suppressed.

The Petitioner has stated in the Petition at part-IV that the date of default is 22.12.2018 (i.e. 15 days from 07.12.2018, the date of invocation of alleged Corporate Guarantee) and taking the said date into account, the present petition is filed on 19.07.2023. Thus, the present petition is barred by limitation.

Furthermore, the Petitioner had also filed Company Petition No. 647/2023 under Section 7 of the Code against Advantage Oils Private Limited (One of the Corporate Guarantor). The said Company Petition was rejected vide order dated 11.01.2024 on the ground that there was no valid invocation of guarantee, the claim against the alleged corporate guarantee dated 12.05.2016 has lapsed and is barred by law of limitation and the alleged claim is barred by the statutory provisions of Section 10A of the Code. 3.12 It is submitted that Section 60(1) of the IBC, an application in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors shall be filed before the NCLT having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the Corporate Person is located. The registered office of the Respondent is located at Bhopal. Therefore, this AA does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 3.13 In addition to that, there is no default or any financial debt in the present case and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The Petitioner has waived the alleged default by the principal borrower therefore, there is no default. 3.14 It is submitted that in absence of default by the principal borrower, there can be no invocation of alleged corporate guarantee by the Respondent. There is neither any debt due nor payable by the Respondent in terms of Section 3(11) of the Code nor there is any default on the part of Respondent in terms of Section 3(12) of the Code.

Additionally, it is submitted that this Adjudicating Authority does not act as an executing court in adjudicating upon an application filed under Section 7 of the Code. The present petition filed by the Petitioner Bank is in nature of seeking execution of the consent decree dated 26.04.2022 passed by the DRT which is impermissible under the provisions of Code. It is evident that the present petition is an attempt to execute the consent order/decree of the DRT, Jabalpur. The jurisdiction of this tribunal under Section 7 of the Code is not available to be used for the purpose of execution of order/decree.

It is submitted that the Petitioner Bank cannot be permitted to parallelly invoke the jurisdiction of this tribunal under Section 7 of Code for enforcing and executing an order/decree of another tribunal. It is well settled legal position that the CIRP cannot be initiated against the Corporate Debtor/Guarantor with an object to execute a decree. It is well settled legal position that right of a decree holder lies in execution and cannot be brought under the provisions of Code. The remedy, if any, for alleged default as claimed by the Petitioner bank lies before the execution court and not before this tribunal under section 7 of the Code.

Moreover, there was no fresh sanction of any facility by the Petitioner Bank rather it was the existing truncated LCs of Rs. 6,000 Crores (as against deposits of Rs. 3,950 crores + accrued interest) which were not new deposits but truncated from deposits of around Rs. 48,943 Crores (Shahpura Branch and Gawlior Branch of Petitioner Bank together).

It is submitted that the facility under the Letter of Arrangement dated 15.03.2013 for 10 Crores for export packing credit for export of soya bean meal has already been closed on 23.05.2018 and for the same reason there is no claim raised by the Petitioner Bank qua the aforesaid facility. Therefore, the aforesaid facilities in the Company Petition were not pertaining to merchanting trade activities of the Principal Borrowers but were separate independent facilities in respect of which no liability is outstanding.

The Corporate Debtor has also filed its written submissions whereby reiterated the same as mentioned in the reply and additionally in support of its arguments relied on the following case laws:

A. Syndicate Bank Vs Channaveetapaa Beleri & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 506 B. Global Trade Finance Ltd. Vs Sudarshan Overseas Ltd. And Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1264 C. Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs State Bank of India and Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 329 of 2023) D. J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deserve Exim Pvt. Ltd. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) no. 486/2023

E. IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs Direct Media Distribution Ventures Private Limited NCLT, Mumbai in CP(IB) No. 827/MB/-IV/2022 F. Mudit Madanlal Gupta Vs Supreme Constructions And Developers Private Limited G. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 356/2022 H. State Bank of India Vs Shaliwahan Farms Private Limited, CP(IB) 1280(MB)/2022

I. Ramesh Kymal Vs M/s. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 224 J. J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Vs Deserve Exim Pvt. Ltd. K. Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs State Bank of India and Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) no. 329/2023 L. Vikram Kumar Vs Aranca (Mumbai) Private Limited, (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 836/2023

This Adjudicating Authority has perused all the relevant papers and found them in order. The Registered Office of the Respondent is situated in Bhopal however the proceeding against the principal borrower and other corporate guarantors are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai therefore, keeping in view of Section 60(2) of the IBC, 2016 this Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to entertain and try this Application.

Before delving into the merits of the case, we may recapitulate some of the significant events and relevant dates which are going to have a bearing on the determination of the present case. To deal with the contention raised by the parties, it is relevant to set out certain facts concerning the debts advanced by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor:-

On 07.04.2016, the Petitioner by way of a letter of Arrangement sanctioned facilities amounting to Rs. 6249.50 Crores to the Advantage Overseas Private Limited ('Borrower'/ 'AOPL'). 6.2 A supplemental agreement of loan for increase in overall limit was executed on 12.05.2016. In order to secure the amounts granted by the Petitioner, Personal Guarantee Agreements were executed in favour of the Petitioner. 6.3 On 07.12.2018 the Petitioner has issued a Recall cum Invocation Notice inter alia calling upon the Borrower and Guarantors including the Corporate Debtor herein to repay the amount of Rs. 1390,78,02,690.02/- within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. 6.4 On 07.01.2019 the Petitioner issued another letter for invocation upon the Borrower and the Borrower and Guarantors including the Corporate Debtor herein to repay an amount of Rs. 1388,87,38,968/- within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. 6.5 Thus, the Petitioner invoked the Corporate Guarantee and called upon the Guarantors to repay the outstanding amount within 15 days from the receipt of the Invocation Notices. The Borrower and Guarantors, including the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the outstanding dues.

It is relevant to refer Section 7 of the Code which clarifies that the Adjudicating Authority upon being satisfied that the default of financial debt has occurred, may order for initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The key ingredients of an Application filed under Section 7 of the Code are: (i) there has to be a financial debt and; (ii) there must be a default in repayment of the financial debt. Hence, the Petitioner must establish that there is a financial debt and that a default has been committed in respect of that financial debt by the Corporate Debtor. While dealing with an application under section 7, the Adjudicating Authority is not required to consider the question of the dispute between the parties as long as the 'debt' and 'default' is proved.

In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Financial Creditor, sanctioned the various credit facilities aggregating to Rs. 6249.50 Crores. Thus, the existence of the first ingredient i.e. financial debt is nowhere in dispute.

In so far as the existence of default is concerned, on 07.12.2018 the Petitioner had issued a Recall cum Invocation Notice inter alia calling upon the Borrower and Guarantors including the Corporate Debtor herein to repay the amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Thus, the Petitioner invoked the Corporate Guarantee and called upon the Guarantors to repay the outstanding amount within 15 days from the receipt of the Invocation Notice. The Borrower and Guarantors, including the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the outstanding dues. The same is further corroborated by the Recovery Certificate of the Ld. DRT.

In view of the facts of the case as stated above it is a clear case of Financial debt which is disbursed against consideration for time value of money and thus falls within the purview of Section 5 (8) of the IBC.

At this juncture it is relevant to refer Section 7 of the Code, 2016. For ease of reference, Section 7 of the Code is reproduced hereunder: -

A mere plain reading of the provisions under Section 7 of the IBC shows that to initiate CIRP under Section 7 of the Code, the Petitioner must establish that there is a financial debt and that the default has been committed in respect of that financial debt by the Corporate Debtor.

Thus, upon conclusion of the fact that the debt has become due and default has been committed in payment of the same to the Creditor, the Adjudicating Authority has no discretion to refuse the admission of the Application for CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank, C.A. Nos. 8337-8338 of 2017, wherein it was held that upon being satisfied that a debt is due and default has occurred, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to commit the Corporate Debtor into CIRP. The relevant excerpts from the judgment are as below:

(emphasis added)

Further, the Apex Court in the case of E S Krishnamurthy & Ors. vs. M/s Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3325 of 2020, dated 14.12.2021, relied upon the judgment of Innoventive (supra) and had held as below:

(emphasis added)

Furthermore, a perusal of the Application and the documents enclosed therewith reveals that date of default mentioned in the part-IV of the Petition is 22.12.2018 i.e., 15 days after the Invocation Notice dated 07.12.2018. In view of the date of default i.e., 22.12.2018 the period of limitation would have expired on 21.12.2021. At this juncture it is pertinent to refer to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2022 wherein it was directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. Taking into account the exclusion period provided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the date of filing of this Petition i.e., 19.07.2023, we find that the present Petition has been filed within the prescribed limitation period.

Upon perusal of records, this Bench is of the considered opinion that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the Corporate Debtor owes debt to the Financial Creditor and has defaulted in the payment of debt. Hence, the debt due and default is established. Hence, this Company Petition is liable to be admitted.

The Financial Creditor has proposed the name of Mr. Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah, Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00471/2017-18/10814, as the Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. He has filed his written communication in Form 2 as required under rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 along with a copy of his Certificate of Registration.

The application made by the Financial Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of minimum amount stipulated under section 4(1) of the IBC. Therefore, the debt and default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the Petition. In view of this, this Adjudicating Authority admits this Petition and orders initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

It is, accordingly, hereby ordered as follows: -

a. The petition bearing CP (IB) 20/MB/2024 filed by STATE BANK OF INDIA, the Financial Creditor, under section 7 of the IBC read with rule 4(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Asian Business Connections Private Limited [CIN: U51109MP2009PTC022634], the Corporate Debtor, is Admitted. We are hereby directing the Suspended Board of Director to Co-operate with the RP/IRP for smooth functioning of CIRP proceeding with providing necessary documents/information as required by the RP/IRP.

b. There shall be a moratorium under section 14 of the IBC, in regard to the following:

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;

Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

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 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002;

The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in possession of the Corporate Debtor.

c. Notwithstanding the above, during the period of moratorium: -

The supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period;

That the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the IBC shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any sectoral regulator;

d. The moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the CIRP or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the IBC or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under section 33 of the IBC, as the case may be.

e. Public announcement of the CIRP shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of the IBC read with regulation 6 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

f. Mr. Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah, Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00471/2017-18/10814, having address at 801-802, 8th Floor, Abhijeet 1 Mithakhali, Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahemdabad-9, is hereby appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Debtor to carry out the functions as per the IBC. The fee payable to IRP or, as the case may be, the RP shall be compliant with such Regulations, Circulars and Directions issued/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 IBC.

g. During the CIRP Period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the IRP or, as the case may be, the RP in terms of section 17 of the IBC. 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 a period of one week from the date of receipt of this Order, in default of which coercive steps will follow.

h. The Financial Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the IRP to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. These expenses are subject to approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Financial Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the IRP by Speed Post and email immediately, and in any case, not later than two days from the date of this Order.

j. IRP is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor. The said Registrar of Companies shall send a compliance report in this regard to the Registry of this Court within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.