State Bank Of India vs Sudip Bijoy Dutta

Statement of accounts of State Bank of India as on 4^th of July, 2019 under the Information Technology Act,

SBI guarantee agreement dated 19^th of October, 2015 executed between applicant and respondent,

recall notice dated 5^th of March, 2018 at page 254 of this application,

notice dated 3^rd of August, 2020

and one demand notice by the State Bank of India to the respondent/ guarantor wherein particulars of the outstanding debt were shown to be Rs. 534,28,82,433.76 (Rupees Five Hundred Thirty-Four Crores Twenty-Eight Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Three and Paise Seventy-Six Only). Through this demand notice, respondent was asked to unconditionally pay the unpaid debt within 40 days from the receipt of this notice failing which Insolvency Resolution Process was sought to be initiated against the guarantor. This notice is at Page – 280 as Annexure- H of this application filed by State Bank of India against the guarantor.

Respondent guarantor has ceased to be Indian Citizen since 18^th of June, 2018: Resolution Professional has failed to bring on record that the respondent is a foreign National of Singapore now and therefore, no Insolvency proceedings can be initiated against him under the Code. Respondent is a citizen of Singapore and it is evident from citizenship certificate dated 18^th of June, 2018 annexed with sur-rejoinder. Respondent being a foreign citizen stands on a completely different footing from citizen of India, and so as he is not covered by the jural or municipal laws of India as he is currently covered by jural and municipal laws of Singapore. Respondent renounced its citizenship on 18^th of June, 2018 as per Annexure R-1 of sur-rejoinder filed by the respondent and the Indian Passport No. Z4229506 dated 26/07/2017 was cancelled. To support this plea, reliance is placed on the following provisions of the Code and contentions.

Currently the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not apply to foreign debtors/ personal guarantors and this is evident from the report of Insolvency Law Committee on cross border Insolvency which is at Page 23-169 of this sur-rejoinder. This Adjudicating Authority do not have the jurisdiction to entertain or initiate any proceedingsunder the Code against the respondent.

Section 1(2) of the Code states that “it extends to whole of India” therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of the Code has been limited only to the territory of India.

The Centre of Main Interest (COMI) of the respondent would lie in Singapore and such an application seeking Insolvency can only be moved before Singapore Courts as this Adjudicating Authority currently does not have jurisdiction under the Code to initiate Insolvency against a person ceased COMI is not within the territory of India. Respondent has surrendered his Indian passport and prior to this he was resident of Singapore and only visited India occasionally not more than 30-40 days in a year.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that a bare reading of the relevant provisions of the Code clearly enunciates that the Code is only applicable to Indian citizens. The Respondent seeks to bring to attention the following relevant provisions under the Code;

Section 1 of the Code is Short title, extent and commencement. Subsection (2) of Section states that “it extends to the whole of India”. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of the Code has been limited only to the territory of India.

Section 2 of the Code is the Application. For the present case, it is submitted that the Section states that the Code shall apply to: - Personal guarantors to corporate Debtors (Clause e); - Individuals, other persons referred to in clause (e) (Clause g)

Further, Section 3(23) of the Code defines person as (a) an individual (b) Hindu Undivided Family (c) a company (d) a trust (e) a partnership (f) a limited liability partnership and (g) any other entity established under a statute and includes a person resident outside India.

From the above provisions the following salient features of the Code are enumerated herien below:

- The Code is Applicable only to the territorial jurisdiction of India

- The Code is Applicable to personal guarantors of the Corporate Debtor and other individuals. Further, it is also applicable to companies, a limited liability partnership and such other body incorporated under any law for the time being in force.

- Persons includes individuals, companies and limited liability partnership and is also said to include a person resident outside India. It is submitted that the term persons is an all encompassing definition which includes various sub categories, and the relevant definition would be applicable at the relevant place.

A conjoint reading of Section 2 and Section 2(23) of the Code clearly enumerates and sub-categories of persons to which the Code would be applicable. It is pertinent to mention that Section 2(e) and 2(g) of the Code only mention personal guarantors and individual other than personal guarantors. It is submitted that if the intention of the legislature was to include all persons, Clause2(g) would not have been restricted only to individuals but would have referred to all persons under the Code other than those mentioned from Clause 2(a) to (f). Therefore, even though Section 3(23) states that person includes person resident outside India, Section 2 of the Code does not refer that the Code will be applicable to all persons under Section 3(23) of the Code.

The intention of the legislature is further clarified by a bare perusal of Section 234 and Section 235 of the Code. It is submitted that Section 234 of the Code states that for the Code to be applicable to a foreign citizen the Central Government would be required to enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India. Further, Section 234 specifies that the Central Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the application of provisions of this Code in relation to assets or property of Corporate Debtor or debtor, including a personal guarantor of a Corporate Debtor, as the case may be, situated any place in a country outside India, with which reciprocal arrangements have been made, shall be subject to such conditions as may be specified. Furthermore, Section 235 allows the RP, liquidator or corporate debtor to seek necessary action relating to assets located in another country with which India would have reciprocal arrangement.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent guarantor submitted since the Central Government has not entered into an agreement with the Government of Singapore or for that matter of fact with any Government in terms of Section 234, therefore, this Adjudicating Authority cannot entertain or decide any application against the foreign national, i.e. respondent guarantor herein. The Ld. Counsel seeks the rejection of this application on this ground alone.

Further, Section 234 specifies that Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette direct the application of provisions of this Code in relation to assets or property of Corporate Debtor or debtor including personal guarantor to a Corporate Debtor, as the case may be, situated in any place in a country outside India with which reciprocal arrangement has been made subject to such conditions as may be specified.

Furthermore Section 235 allows the Resolution Professional, the liquidator to seek necessary action relating to assets located in any other country with which India would have reciprocal arrangements. It is further submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel, the Code does not ipso facto apply to a foreign citizen and the mandate of Section 234 and 235 of the Code would be required to be fulfilled to allow the Adjudicating Authority under this Code to enforce any provisions of the Code against foreign citizens.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a notification dated 22^nd of July, 2022 wherein Clause 5 clearly states that with respect to all economic, financial and educational field or the rights and privileges of family has no rights or liabilities unless it has been laid down under specific policy. The copy of the notification being relied on by the respondent at page- 19 of this sur-rejoinder.

Bar of limitations: Present application filed by the Bank is barred by limitation because the date of default in the petition is 29.03.2016 and the petition has been filed on 02.12.2020

Respondent only gave a guarantee for the amount of Rs. 50 Crores: The respondent is one of the ex-Directors of Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. The amount mentioned in Section 95 application of the Code and Section 99 of the Code is erroneous as the respondent only gave a guarantee for the amount of Rs. 50 Crores as is reflected from documents annexed with the application.

Guarantee is disputed as it was not signed by respondent. The validity of the deed of guarantee is disputed as it was not signed by respondent. There was no loan agreement dated 16^th of October, 2015 on the basis of which the deed of guarantee exists.

The application is pre-mature as deed of guarantee is only applicable once the applicant has recovered its dues from the Corporate Debtor. The Creditor has erroneously mentioned an amount of Rs. 5,44,62,80,996.88/- as the default amount, as the guarantee given by the respondent is only to the extent of Rs.50 Crores.

It is stated that Clause 1 and Clause 7 of the said deed of guarantee clearly limits the guarantee provided by the respondent herein to extent on only Rs. 50 Crores.

From the clause of the deed of guarantee it is clear that respondent was liable of demanding up to principal amount of Rs. 50 Crores. It is nowhere mentioned in the deed of guarantee that the respondent agreed to pay the entire amount due to the Company and only promise to pay an amount of Rs. 50 Crores together with any interest accrue thereon. Even if the interest component is added the said principal amount would be along with interest considerably laid the amount claimed as default by the creditor which has also been mechanically accepted by the Resolution Professional in its report.

The amount of default against the guarantor has not been crystallised and will only crystallised once the CIRP against Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. has concluded.

The deed of guarantee and the loan agreement dated 16^th of October, 2015 has not been executed by the respondent herein. The deed of guarantee is the only document which indicates privity of contract between the parties and the said document seems fraudulent or doctored. Due to the fact that the signature on the said deed of guarantee does not match with the signature of the respondent and the said document seem to contain manufacture signatures of the respondent and the said document is not attested.

The applicant should be put to strict proof and produce said document that is deed of guarantee executed between the parties. The respondent has duly replied to the demand on 3^rd of August, 2020 issued by Resolution Professional and it is not correct to say that no reply was made to this demand notice. The execution of the said deed of guarantee is under doubt and the same is not reliable for the purpose of present debt. The Resolution Professional has not been appointed as per the procedure laid down under Section 97 of the Code.

No opportunity has been provided to the respondent to present its facts stated in this reply affidavit that the respondent was not aware of any proceedings against Section 95 of the Code. The interim moratorium has prejudiced the respondent as it had no opportunity to filed its response to the application. It was only after hearing dated 3^rd of August, 2021 after going through stamp folders the respondent found the petition being served on it via e-mail. The report has not been served to the respondent herein and the same has been obtained from DMS Server.

Respondent has reiterated his denials in this subsequent affidavit and his liability to pay any amount in terms of deed of guarantee being relied on by the applicant. Respondent has reiterated its plea of limitation and also the plea of deed of guarantee dated 19^th of October, 2015 was not executed by the respondent No. 1 namely Sudeep Bijoy Dutta. This sur rejoinder is supported by an affidavit of one Jayant Kumar Singh, resident of South West Delhi.

The liability of the guarantor does not extinguish merely on the ground that he has ceased to be Indian citizen.

Mr. Jayant Kumar Singh has who has to filed his affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent do not have any valid authority and other cannot be considered by this Tribunal. (Page 3 of rejoinder of SBI).

One M/s Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. approach the applicant Bank for availing term loan and working credit facilities on 2^nd of August, 2005. This loan was sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor by the applicant Bank upon execution of the requisite documents, agreements and deeds.

The credit facility was secured inter-alia by way of personal guarantee of the respondent.

The credit facility was enhanced and renewed by the applicant Bank from time to time.

The respondent in his personal capacity also executed deed of guarantee in favour of applicant Bank from time to time in order to secured credit facilities sanctioned by the applicant. The last deed of guarantee includes the deeds of guarantee dated 25^th of April, 2013, 30^th of September, 2015 and last deed of guarantee was executed on 19^th of October, 2015. Limitation and hence this application under Section 95 (1) of the Code filed by the Bank is well within the limitation as:

a. The Corporate Debtor further acknowledged its liability vide balance sheet for the year ending 31^st of March, 2018, page 89 - 364

b. Also, the Corporate Debtor duly admitted the liability vide confirmation letters dated 31^st of December, 2015, 31^st of March, 2016, 31^st of March, 2017.

c. The Corporate Debtor also acknowledged its liability vide letter dated 15^th of March, 2018 towards settlement of its dues to the applicant (Annexure F of the rejoinder).

It is recorded in the report of Resolution Professional that the Resolution Professional through an e-mail and letter dated 14^th of September, 2021 sought the information from the respondent guarantor. The information sought by the Resolution Professional is mentioned at Page-5 of report of Resolution Professional and the letter dated 4^th of September, 2021 is annexed at Page-20 of the report of the Resolution Professional. Copies of the email and letters issued to him have been placed on record as Annexure-4 with the report of the Resolution Professional.

It is further mentioned in the report of the Resolution Professional that the Resolution Professional did not receive any information as sought from the respondent however, he received an e-mail dated 16^th of September, 2021 from his advocate on behalf of respondent that there is a serious doubt about the authenticity of the PDF. Copy of the order dated 3^rd of August, 2021 filed by the NCLT.

The Resolution Professional replied to the letter of the advocate for the respondent through e-mail dated 14^th of September, 2021 which as Annexure P-6 along with the report of the Resolution Professional wherein the information sought earlier was reiterated by the Resolution professional.

The reply filed by the respondent seeking but an after thought and has been filed with the same intention to delay in frustrate legitimate claim of the applicant Bank.

The respondent in his personal capacity executed the deed of guarantee to secure the credit facilities sanctioned by the applicant. The copies of the deeds of guarantees have been annexed with the rejoinder. The applicant issued statutory demand notice dated 20^th of July, 2016 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the Corporate Debtor as well as to the respondent being personal guarantor demanding outstanding dues as on 31^st of May, 2016.

Neither the Corporate Debtor nor the respondent filed any reply to the demand notice. Copy of demand notice dated 20^th of July, 2016 has been annexed with the rejoinder as Exhibit E.

There was no re-payment by the Corporate Debtor or respondent to the aforesaid demand notice sent through its advocate on 5^th of March, 2018 called upon the Corporate Debtor and the respondent to pay the admitted outstanding debt to the applicant. Despite receiving the notice the Corporate Debtor and respondent failed and neglected to pay the admitted outstanding debt in default to the applicant.

15^th of March, 2018. (Annexure F at page 83 of application)The Corporate Debtor Sudip Dutta, as the Chairman of Ess Dee Aluminium Limited admitted outstanding principal debt when it made an offer to applicant to settle the dues under compromise vide its letter dated 15^th of March, 2018. However, the Corporate Debtor did not make initial deposit of 5% of proposed compromise settlement, the applicant was only to consider the said offer.

2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20:Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt in default in its balance sheet for the year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20. Copies of these balance sheets have been annexed with this rejoinder as Exhibit – G with this application.

The applicant filed an application being CP(IB) on 5^th of August, 2019 against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Code before this Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition under Section 7 on 14^th of February, 2020 and initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. As the Corporate Debtor could not be revived during CIRP period, the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 8^th of October, 2021 ordered the liquidation process of Corporate Debtor,

Resolution Professional before submitting the aforesaid report to respondent seeking details of re-payment of default along with proof of re-payment. However, no revert was received from the respondent providing details of repayment of default amount. Respondent being personal guarantor of Corporate Debtor is also erstwhile promoter and director of Corporate Debtor who has admitted the liability of Rs. 50 Crores Plus Interest in its reply in various paragraphs.

In clause 17 of deed of guarantee dated 19^th of October, 2015 deals with an event if the borrower goes to liquidation, CIRP can be proceeded against principal borrower as well as the guarantor and the applicant has initiated the present process against the respondent in view of provisions of the Code and the settled law in this regard.

Therefore, in view of the said balance confirmation and acknowledgement of liability by the Corporate Debtor, respondent being the personal guarantor is also bound by the same. Therefore, the limitation in the present case stood extended from time to time with subsequent admission and acknowledgement in view of a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Dena Bank Vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and another (Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2020) and as such present application by the Bank against respondent filed on 1^st of December, 2020 is well within period of limitation i.e., 3 years and as applicable to proceedings under the Code.

In view of law laid down by NCLAT in case of Ravi Ajit Kulkarni Vs. State Bank of India, limited notice of application has to be given to the personal guarantor however, no hearing is necessary before appointment of Resolution Professional under Section 97 of the Code. It is also clearly evident from the records produced before this Adjudicating Authority, about financial debt is over and above the threshold limit which is due and payable by the respondent to the applicant as on the date of filing this company petition and there is a default in re-payment thereto which is supported by the report filed by the Resolution Professional. The contentions of the respondent are absolutely false, untenable, baseless and misconceived. The applicant prays for admission of this petition under Section 100 of the Code and pass an appropriate order for initiating Insolvency Resolution Process against respondent and all consequential directions as may be required.

By way of Amendment in 2018, sub-sections (e), (f) and (g) were inserted in Section 2 of the Code. Section 2 provides the classification of entities on whom the Code would apply. Section 2(e) of the Code² provides that the code shall apply to personal guarantors to corporate debtors, thereby excluding such personal guarantors from the ambit of individuals, which are provided under Section 2(g).

Section 60 (1) & (2) of the Code:

Per Contra, raisons d'être of Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent;

a. Since 18^th of June, 2018 being a foreign citizen, he stands on a completely different footing from citizen of India and so as he is not covered by the jural or municipal laws of India as he is currently covered by jural and municipal laws of Singapore,

b. Currently the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not apply to foreign debtors and this is evident from the report of Insolvency Law Committee on cross border Insolvency,

c. There is no agreement of Government of India and that of Government of Singapore in terms of Section 234 of the Code,

d. This Adjudicating Authority do not have the jurisdiction to entertain or initiate any insolvency proceedings against it and Territorial jurisdiction of the Code has been limited only to the territory of India,

e. Centre of Main Interest (COMI) of the respondent would lie in Singapore and such an application seeking Insolvency can only be moved before Singapore Courts as this Adjudicating Authority currently does not have jurisdiction under the Code to initiate Insolvency against a person ceased COMI is not within the territory of India. Respondent has surrendered his Indian passport and prior to this he was resident of Singapore and only visited India occasionally not more than 30-40 days in a year;

ex-facie sans rationale, provisions and legislative intent of the Code. If this plea of respondent is accepted, it shall mean allowing a subterfuge to get away without discharge of financial obligations incurred in India. Give a Bank Guarantee for obtaining loan in India, renounce Indian citizen ship and upon being asked to discharge obligation of repayment/face CIRP, simply state ‘Catch me if you can’ after becoming Citizen of any other Country. No law or policy can be interpreted to give it such an absurd interpretation. In considering and taking a decision to the plea of respondent, reliance is also placed on judgement of Hon’ble Super Court, 1994 SCC (3) 440, where it has been held:

Sub section (1) of section 234 uses the expression “may”. Further, the words, ‘agreement with Government of any country outside India for enforcing the provisions of this Code’ have to be read with conjunction with words’ in relation to assets or property of Corporate Debtor or debtor, including a personal guarantor or a Corporate Debtor, as the case may be, situated at any place in a country outside India,appearing in subsection (2) of 234.

A perusal Section 234 and observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case , Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India, (2021) 9 SCC 321,

It is matter of record and relevant to mention here, this Adjudicating Authority on 19^th of February, 2020 admitted an application under Section 7 of the Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process filed by State Bank of India against Corporate Debtor namely Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. of whom the respondent/personal guarantor herein was the Director. It is explicit and leaving no doubt that the respondent in his personal capacity executed the deed of guarantee on 15 -10-2018 at Kolkata with respect to subject matter situated in India to secure the credit facilities sanctioned by applicant Bank. And on this day, admittedlyhe was a citizen of India. So, on the date of contracting the instrument of guarantee, respondent was an Indian Citizen and nature of this deed was “continuing” and till the full discharge by obligations to repay under it by the respondent. The consequences flowing from failure to repay are to be dealt with applicable laws in India and in this case Section 95(1) of the Code, to be specific. And the process under Section 95 (1) of the Code could be triggered by the Applicant before this Adjudicating Authority.

By renouncing his citizenship of India, liability of respondent to discharge his obligations created in terms of deed of guarantee executed as Citizen of India shall not be extinguished/come to an end. To say it other the way, even after getting citizen ship of another country his liability under the deed of guarantee shall continue with all the consequences under the Code flowingg out of his failure to repay the amount due and in default.

Applicant was/is well within its right to have filed and maintain this application under section 95(1) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

And for the foregoing reasons, we hereby determine this Adjudicating authority has the necessary jurisdiction to entrain, adjudicate upon this application and grant the relief as asked for in this application.

a. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent, respondent has categorically, unambiguous and repeatedly admitted his liability under the guarantee however, for an amount of Rs. 50 crores, the extract of admission made in the reply affidavit in various paragraphs of the affidavit of respondent is reproduced hereinafter; -

b. In the sur-rejoinder the respondent took U-turn and reproduced hereinafter; -

From the above, it is significant to note unambiguously, the respondent not only once but many times in different paragraphs at different pages of his reply affidavit categorically admitted Rs. 50 Crores as his liability under the Deed of Guarantee executed by him.However, in the sur-rejoinder he has stated that in para 5(d) only he erroneously stated the admitted amount of Rs. 50 crores payable by him.

c. Also, this Adjudicating Authority after a perusal of numerous documents produced by applicant bank is satisfied that the

respondent executed bank guarantee dated 15^th of October, 2018. Denials in subsequent pleading i.e.,sur rejoinder after objections to report of RP by respondent is merely an afterthought to wriggle out of his admitted and proven obligations arising out of deed of bank guarantee duly executed by him. And in an endeavour to escape he has chosen to raise every conceivable objection without any basis thereof. We hereby reject each such contention of the respondent as raised by him with regard to loan agreement or execution of bank guarantee dated 19^th of October, 2015, the same being baseless, incorrect and contrary to record before us.

Finding III: Considering the plea of respondent with respect to Notification dated 22^nd of July, 2021: “Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a notification dated 22^nd of July, 2022 wherein Clause 5 clearly states that with respect to all economic, financial and educational field or the rights and privileges of family has no rights or liabilities unless it has been laid down under specific policy”, we findthat; -Policy referred by the respondent do not apply to respondent. Respondent has not claimed to be OCI card holder. Besides the above, we find that the policy nowhere exempts foreign citizens from the consequences upon their failure to discharge their lawful obligations in terms of deed of guarantee executed by them as the citizen of India. Plea of respondent in reference to policy is misquoted and misleading. We find the plea of the respondent sought to be raised is fallacious on the face of it and the same is therefore rejected.

The Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated against the respondent and the moratorium is declared, which begins with the date of admission of the application and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 180 days, as provided u/s. 101 of IBC, 2016 or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the repayment plan under sub-section (1) of section 114 of the Code.

The Resolution Professional appointed u/s. 97 vide order dated 03.08.2021 by this Adjudicating Authority, is directed to cause a public notice published on behalf of the Adjudicating Authority within seven days of uploading of this Order and to inviting claims from all Creditors, who shall register their claims as provided u/s. 103 of the IBC, 2016 within twenty-onedays of such issuance.

The notice shall contain the necessary information as provided u/s. 102(2) of IBC, 2016. The publication of notice shall be made in two newspapers, one in English Daily and one in local Daily, which have wide circulation where the Personal Guarantor resides. The Resolution Professional shall furnish two spare copies of the notice to the Registry, Kolkata Bench. One copy of the notice shall be placed by the Registry on NCLT Website and the other shall be affixed in the premises of this Adjudicating Authority.

The Resolution Professional in exercise of the powers conferred u/s. 104 of the IBC, 2016 shall prepare a list of creditors within thirty days from the date of the notice. The personal guarantor shall prepare a repayment plan in consultation with the Resolution Professional as provided u/s. 105 of the IBC, 2016, which shall include the provisions for payment of fee to the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional shall submit the repayment plan along with his report on the plan to this Adjudicating Authority within a period of twenty-one days from the last date of submission of claims, as provided u/s. 106 of the IBC, 2016.

In case the Resolution Professional recommends that a meeting of the creditors is not required to be summoned, he shall record the reasons therefor. If the Resolution Professional is of the opinion that the meeting of the creditors should be summoned, he shall specify the details as provided u/s. 106(3) of the IBC, 2016. The date of meeting should not be less than 14 days or more than 28 days from the date of submission of the Report under sub-section (1) of section 106 of the IBC, 2016, for which at least 14 days’ notice to the creditors, as per the list prepared, shall be issued by all modes. Such notice must contain the details as provided under the provisions of section 107 of the IBC, 2016.

The meeting of the creditors shall be conducted in accordance with sections 108, 109, 110 and 111 of the IBC, 2016. The Resolution Professional shall prepare a report of the meeting of the creditors on repayment plan with all details as provided under section 112 of the IBC, 2016 and submit the same to this Adjudicating Authority, copies of which shall be provided to the personal Guarantor and the Creditors as per section 113 of the IBC, 2016. It is made clear that the Resolution Professional shall perform his functions and duties in compliance with the Code of Conduct provided u/s. 208 of the IBC, 2016.

In terms of the above, CP(IB)/24(KB/2021 filed u/s. 95 of the IBC, 2016 is admitted and the Insolvency Resolution Process stands initiated against the debtor/Personal Guarantor.

List CP(IB)/54(KB)2021 for filing of progress report on 04.08.2022 by the RP named above.

The Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties and their Ld. Counsel for information and for taking necessary steps.

Certified Copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.