Dynamix Growth Avenues Pvt Ltd vs Partha Sarathy Sarker on 28 July, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Dynamix Growth Avenues Pvt Ltd vs Partha Sarathy Sarker on 28 July, 2023

This Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Cont'd.../ -2- Jaipur Bench rejecting I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022 filed by the Appellant by which application the relief sought by the Appellant was to direct the IRP to reconstitute the CoC of the Corporate Debtor by including the Appellant as Financial Creditor and certain other reliefs. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Appellant, Resolution Professional as well as Respondent No.2 (Financial Creditor who had filed application under Section 7) has rejected I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022, against which order this Appeal has been filed. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this Appeal are:

i. A Section 7 application was filed by the Respondent No.2, UTI Trustee Company Pvt. Ltd. against the Corporate Debtor - M/s Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. on 04.06.2018 on which CP (IB) No. 39(PB)2018 was registered.

ii. The Corporate Debtor received finance from the Respondent No.2 in the nature of Secured Redeemable Non-Convertible Debentures in the year 1995. The Corporate Debtor who cannot repay the debt was referred to BIFR on 08.12.2000. Upon enactment of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending reference in BIFR stood abated on 16.12.2016.

iii. Section 7 application was filed by Respondent No.2 on 04.06.2018, which could be admitted by the Adjudicating Authority by its order dated 28.03.2022. Respondent No.1 was appointed as IRP, who made public announcement on 29.03.2022.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -3- iv. On 11.04.2022, the Appellant herein submitted three financial claims totalling to Rs.12893,39,03,000/-. The three claims filed by the Appellant in Form C were to the following effect:

(a) A claim of Rs.10862,22,74,000/- on the strength of Assignment Deed dated 03.04.2017 executed by M/s Modern Terry Towel (Assignor No.1) for a consideration of Rs.5 Crores out of which Rs.5 Lakhs were claimed to be paid.

(b) Claim of amount of Rs.1315,29,99,000/- on the basis of Assignment Deed dated 29.01.2019 executed by M/s Pallavi Synthetics Private Limited (Assignor No.2) for a consideration of Rs.4.66 Crores.

(c) Claim of amount of Rs.715,86,30,000/- on the basis of Assignment Deed dated 13.04.2017 executed by M/s Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. (Assignor No.3) arising out of financial facilities and assistance availed by the Corporate Debtor for an amount of Rs.45 Crores.

v. IRP by email dated 13.04.2022 acknowledged the claims provisionally. IRP called for various documents from the Appellant as mentioned in the email. By subsequent email dated 18.04.2022, the IRP informed to the Appellant that 'Modern Terry Towel' is one of the related party of the Corporate Debtor, hence, the Appellant stepping in the shoes of assignor being related party Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -4- has to be treated as related party and cannot be considered as part of the CoC. Certain documents were also called for from the Appellant. The email dated 18.04.2022 was sent with regard to (separate emails) all the three claims submitted by the Appellant. vi. The Appellant filed an application under Section 60(5) of the I&B Code on 26.04.2022 being I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022. In the application I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022 following prayers were made by the Appellant:

"PRAYERS It is humbly prayed that this Ld. Tribunal may be pleased to allow the following prayers of the Applicant:

a. Allow the instant Application filed by the Applicant, and b. Direct the Respondent / Interim Resolution Professional to re-constitute the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor Modern Syntex (India) Limited by including the Applicant as the Financial Creditor having the voting rights; and c. Declare any resolution passed in any CoC meeting convened in the absence of the Applicant as null and void and non-est; and d. Stay the convening of any meeting of the Committee of Creditors meetings during the pendency of the instant Application: and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -5- e. Grant ex-parte ad interim stay against implementation of any resolution as passed by the CoC in absence of the Applicant during the pendency of the instant Applicant; and/or f. Pass any other Order that this Ld. Tribunal deems necessary in the interests of justice."

vii. The Adjudicating Authority passed an order dated 10.05.2022, where it was observed that the application filed by the Applicant (Appellant) generates several doubts regarding claim of the Appellant. Direction was issued by the Adjudicating Authority on 10.05.2022 to the Applicant to provide various documents including the Bank Statement of ICICI Bank for last six years. Appellant was also directed to file original Assignment Deeds dated 03.04.2017, 29.01.2019 and 13.04.2017 and details of major business events of the Appellant.

viii. Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2022 filed an appeal before this Tribunal.

ix. In the I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022, reply and submissions were made by the Resolution Professional. Respondent No.2 also filed an application for impleadment, which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. Respondent No.2 also filed its written submission alongwith supporting documents before the Adjudicating Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -6- x. Appeal filed by the Appellant against order dated 10.05.2022 being Company Appel (AT) (Ins.) No. 596 of 2022 came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.

xi. Certain documents were submitted by the Appellant and Resolution Professional also submitted detailed report before the Adjudicating Authority. Resolution Professional in its report gave details about all three claims of the Appellant based on three different assignments.

xii. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties, by impugned order dated 19.04.2023 rejected I.A. No. 203/JPR/2022. Aggrieved by which order this Appeal has been filed.

2. We have heard Shri Alok Dhir, learned counsel for the Appellant, Shri Deeptakirti Verma, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Shri Partha Sarathy Sarkar, the Resolution Professional.

3. Shri Alok Dhir, learned counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal submits that the Appellant had submitted three claims on the basis of three Assignments made in favour of the Appellant Viz. Assignment by Modern Terry Towels dated 03.04.2017, which assignment clearly stated that Modern Terry Towels was a guarantor to financial facility provided by Uni Credit Bank (formerly BV Bank) to the Corporate Debtor. On 29.07.2014 as per settlement agreement entered by Modern Terry Towels, an amount of Rs.19,44,96,000/- was paid as settlement amount. Since the total debt was Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -7- more than Rs.169 Crores, the Appellant has filed his financial claim claiming interest on the said amount from 1997, which claim amounted to Rs.10862,22,74,000/-. With regard to Second Assignment from Pallavi Synthetics Private Limited, it has been submitted that the Corporate Debtor has taken working capital loan from Mashreq Bank. On default committed by the Corporate Debtor, Section 7 application was filed by the Mashreq Bank in which settlement agreement was entered for an amount Rs.4.66 Crore, which was paid by the entities M/s K3N and Adarsh Pratishthan, which entities belong to Pallavi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., hence, Pallavi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. has assigned debt in favour of the Appellant, on basis of which claim of Rs.1315,29,99,000/- was made. With regard to Third Assignment on the basis of Assignment Deed dated 13.04.2017 from Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd., which has disbursed amount of Rs.45 Crores to the Corporate Debtor between the 2004 to 2010, claim of Rs.715,86,30,000/- was filed. It is submitted that mere fact that in the Assignment Deed dated 03.04.2017, the consideration was Rs.5 Crore out of which Rs.5 Lakhs was paid, cannot be ground to doubt the Assignment Deed. Consideration paid in the Assignment is not relevant nor on that basis Assignment can be discarded. It is submitted that all relevant documents were submitted by the Appellant before the Resolution Professional and before the Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Professional wrongly treated the Appellant as related party to the Corporate Debtor, whereas no finding has been recorded by the Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant is related party as Assignors were related party to the Corporate Debtor. The impugned order proceeds on mere suspicion and speculation. Disbursal of the amount by original lenders is an admitted fact. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -8- The Adjudicating Authority has erred in recording finding in Para 21 that Appellant has failed to submit documents as sought by order dated 10.05.2022. The Adjudicating Authority has been unduly swayed away by non-disbursement of consideration amount in terms of the assignment deeds to reject the application of the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority erred in placing undue reliance on the claim amount of the Appellant being Rs.10862.22/- Crores against the principal loan amount being Rs.169 Crores without taking into consideration the relevant fact that the dues of the financial creditor in the present case has remained outstanding for more than 23 years and the claim amount of Respondent No.2 is 65 times the principal amount.

4. Shri Deeptakirti Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has refuted the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and submitted that claims filed by the Appellant of more than Rs.13,000/- Crores were all sham and un-genuine claims. The Appellant was hand in gloves with the Corporate Debtor and the claim of exorbitant amount without any basis has been filed by the Appellant to control the CoC to benefit the Corporate Debtor. None of the claims are backed by sufficient and relevant documents. The Appellant despite clear direction of the Adjudicating Authority on 10.05.2022 to provide the original Assignment Deeds failed to file original Assignment Deeds which clearly indicate that documents were all manufactured and antedated. It is submitted that inspite of direction of the Adjudicating Authority to file the bank statements of Appellant for last six years of the ICICI Bank, bank statements were not filed by the Appellant Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -9- deliberately to conceal that there was no transaction for payment of any amount towards assignment as claimed. All the claims are based on cooked up documents to somehow enter into the CoC. With regard to the Assignment Deed dated 03.04.2017, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the Corporate Debtor has sent two letters dated 03.03.2018 and 22.01.2019 addressed to Respondent No.2 where outstanding principal dues of BV Bank was stated to be Rs.81.48 Crores and Rs.41.42 Crores. The Assignment Deed is back dated and sham document. It is further stated that as per settlement agreement executed on 29.07.2014, settlement amount paid by the Modern Terry Towels was Rs.19,44,96,000/- and the Assignee of Modern Terry Towels which was Guarantor and paid settlement amount is now claiming amount of more than Rs.10862 Crores for amount of Rs.19 Crore which was paid in 2014. It itself indicate the intention and malafide design of Appellant to control the CoC. It is submitted that in the balance sheet of the Appellant, none of the amount which are now claimed as financial debt have been shown as payable by the Corporate Debtor, which itself proves that there was, in fact, no Assignment in the relevant time nor any dues payable by the Corporate Debtor. Assignment from Pallavi Synthetics Private Limited was without any basis since admittedly the amount paid to the Mashreq Bank in terms of the settlement was by M/s K3N and Adarsh Pratishthan. There is no right in Pallavi Synthetics Private Limited to make any Assignment. With regard to Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Assignment, it is submitted that amount of Rs.45 Crores which is claimed to be disbursed by Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. was actually Equity Share Application Money brought in by the Promoter of the Corporate Debtor and Associates pursuant Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -10- to restructuring/settlement scheme of liabilities, which is all clearly proved from the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor for the year ending 31.03.2005 and balance sheet for year ending 31.03.2017. There was no debt of Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. and whole claim is false and frivolous.

5. The Resolution Professional also refuted the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and submitted that Appellant inspite of clear order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 10.05.2022 did not file the relevant documents including the balance sheet of the Appellant to prove that there was any transaction which may supplant the payment towards Assignments claimed by the Appellant. Assignment Deeds were not brought on the record inspite of direction which clearly prove that the claim submitted by the Appellant were sham and bogus. The Resolution Professional has filed the Balance Sheets of the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, in none of the balance sheets for the period 2017-18 to 2020-21 any recoverable amount from Corporate Debtor was mentioned. The claim of the Appellant is not corroborated from the balance sheet of the Appellant itself, hence, it has no legs to stand. The claim filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority was through an associate of Ranka family, Promoter of the Corporate Debtor, to derail the CIRP. Details of all the three Assignment and relevant documents were produced and the Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties has rightly rejected the claim of the Appellant.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -11-

7. The Adjudicating Authority in detail has noted the three claims submitted by the Appellant in Para 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the impugned order. The pleadings and documents submitted by the Resolution Professional has also been noted. Financial Creditor's pleadings i.e. Respondent No.2 has also been noticed. The Adjudicating Authority has also noticed its earlier order dated 10.05.2022 by which it directed the Applicant/Appellant to file certain documents. The Adjudicating Authority has returned a finding that Applicant has failed to file Balance Sheet of six years, Assignment Deeds and other documents. In Para 21 and 22 of the order following has been observed:

"21. The Applicant was directed vide Order dated 10.05.2022 to file certain documents before us but the Applicant has failed to file the same. The only piece of documents presented before us are Memorandum of Association of the Applicant. Articles of Association of the Applicant, name of the director of Applicant and his authorization stemming from Board Resolutions for signing the Assignment Deeds, Details of the Statutory Auditors of the Corporate Debtor, List of Directors and Representation of the various shareholdings/directors. The Applicant has failed to file its Bank Statement for the past 6 years; Original Assignment Deeds as executed between the Applicant and the Assignor Companies; Copy of minutes books, Board Meetings, Notice & Agenda of Board Meetings; Minutes and Attendance register in the books of the Corporate Debtor, Applicant and Assignor Companies at the time of Assignment; etc. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -12-

22. In absence of the bank statements, we are unable to ascertain how the consideration as mentioned in the Assignment deeds was disbursed to the Assignee Companies. It is seen that only w.r.t. the Assignor Company No. 1 an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) was disbursed at the time of execution as mentioned in the Assignment deed itself. The remaining payment to the Assignor Companies cannot be traced in the absence of any proof. Also, there is no reason which can explain the absence of any transaction between the Applicant and the Assignor Companies for the subsequent assignment of the alleged loans."

8. The Adjudicating Authority has also given cogent reasons for rejecting Assignment Deed of Assignor No.2 and Assignor No.3. In Para 23 and 24 following has been observed:

"23. Moreover, it is shocking to see that these transactions have been carried out by the Assignor Companies without coming in true light. With respect to the rights of Assignor Company No 2. it is observed that there is no link established between the payment made by M/s K3N and M/s Adarsh Pratishthan to M/s Modern Petrofils (A unit of Corporate Debtor) for settlement of loan availed from Mashreq Bank with that of the rights assigned by the Assignor Company No. 2. No link has been established between Assignor Company No. 2 and M/s K3N and M/s Adarsh Prathishthan, the companies that made payment to the M/s Modern Petrofils (A unit of Corporate Debtor) for disbursing the alleged settlement amount to Mashreq Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -13- Bank. The nature of the transactions carried out by the above 2 companies cannot be ascertained in the present circumstances.

24. Mere glance of the documents shows that there is no cogent evidence to prove the existence of any loan in favour of the Assignor No. 3 which was availed by the Corporate Debtor. The Assignor Company No.3 has plainly assigned its rights to recover from the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant for a consideration of Rs. 50 Lakhs but no document is on record which can show that there was an existing debt. Hence, in the absence of any loan, the assignment done by Assignor Company No. 3 automatically stands nullified. There is no iota of proof which can substantiate the claim of the Applicant vis-à-vis the claim of Assignor Company No.

3."

9. Shri Alok Dhir, learned counsel for the Appellant has given much emphasis on Assignment made by Modern Terry Towel dated 03.04.2017. The photocopies of the Assignment Deed dated 03.04.2017 has brought on the record, however, inspite of direction of the Adjudicating Authority to file original Assignment Deed, the Appellant did not file any Assignment Deed. The Assignment Deed dated 03.04.2017 is assignment by Modern Terry Towel who was Guarantor to the debt taken by the Corporate Debtor from Uni Credit Bank (formerly BV Bank). Assignment Deed indicate that against the amount equivalent to Rs.169,48,76,131/- assignment is made for total sum of Rs.5 Crore out of which Rs.5 Lakhs has paid upon execution of deed and rest amount was to be paid by 31.03.2021. The Resolution Professional has referred to the balance sheet of the Appellant as per MCA online data from Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -14- March, 2017 to March, 2021, where claims on the basis of all the three assignments against the Corporate are not mentioned. None of the balance sheet of the Appellant reflect any claim due on the strength of all the three assignments. Affidavit which has been filed by Respondent No.2 before this Tribunal brought on record letter dated 27.08.2018 sent by the Corporate Debtor to the Respondent No.2 alongwith which letter Corporate Debtor on 27.08.2018 has forwarded the Unaudited Accounts for the year 2018 for perusal of Respondent No.2. In the Unaudited Accounts which was sent, under the Long Term Borrowing, Foreign Currency Loan from Bank was mentioned as Rs.8,148 Lakhs as on 31.03.2018. Note 5.4 (a), (b) and (c) has been referred to which refers to company defaulting in payment of foreign currency loan since 1997-98. Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor for the year 2018-19 for the first time in finance notes referred to assignment to the Appellant.

10. Prior to balance sheet of 2018-19, there is no mention of assignment. Date on which balance sheet of 2018-19 was submitted is not on the record. In any event, the said balance sheet could not have been submitted prior to 14.07.2018, when Section 7 application was filed by Respondent No.2 against the Corporate Debtor. We find sufficient substance in submissions of learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that Corporate Debtor being aware of the insolvency resolution process mentioned assignment in favour of the Appellant to put the Appellant in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in event it is initiated, to take control of the CIRP. As noted above, in the balance sheet of the Appellant no such dues payable by Corporate Debtor has been Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -15- mentioned on the basis of any of the three assignments, as claimed before the Resolution Professional. In the balance sheet of the Assignor Company also there was no mention of the aforesaid dues against the Corporate Debtor before they were assigned to the Appellant. Non-reflection of amounts in the financial accounts of either of the Assignor or the Assignee creates substantial doubt in the case of the Appellant.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstance and the manner in which the claim has been put up by the Appellant, we concur with the opinion of the Adjudicating Authority that all three transactions are sham and the matter needs to be examined by appropriate authority to prevent misuse of the forum and defeat the objectives of the Code. In this regard observations have been made by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 29, which is to the following effect:

"29. There is a clear cut procedure; guidelines and the requirements of minimum payment, capacity of the Assignee, reflections of transactions in Balance Sheets of the Assignor Companies and the Assignee in case of assignment of any debt. All of the aforesaid are missing in the present case. It appears that all there are sham transactions and the matter needs thorough examinations by the Appropriate Authority to prevent misuse of this forum and defeat the objectives of the Code. The role of all the Statutory Auditors, who have signed the Balance Sheets of the Assignor Companies, Applicant Company and the Corporate Debtor need to be examined. Though it is a fit case to reject this application with a heavy penalty, we are not imposing any penalty as the matter needs further examination Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -16- and investigation in the interest of all the stakeholders."

12. The magnitude of exorbitant claim which was submitted by the Appellant is well reflected by the facts and figures given by the Appellant themselves. With regard to Assignor No.1, the M/s Modern Terry Towel who was Guarantor of the financial assistance taken by the Corporate Debtor, entered into settlement on 29.07.2014. The settlement amount claimed by the Appellant was Rs.19,44,96,000/- as per settlement agreement dated 29.07.2014, which is part of the record. Settlement was for an amount of 24,00,000/- Euros i.e. Rs.19,44,96,000/-, according to the case of Appellant himself. When the Guarantor paid the settlement amount to settle the dues of Principal Borrower to the extent of Rs.19,44,96,000/- then how can Appellant in his claim form mentions Principal Amount as Rs.169,48,76,131/-. Form C which was filed by the Appellant indicate that on the above Principal Amount interest is being charged from 01.04.1997 to 28.03.2022. The Guarantor who has paid the settlement amount towards extinguishment of the debt of the Principal Borrower by virtue of provisions of Section 145 of the Contract Act, surety is entitled to recover from the Corporate Debtor whatever sum he has rightfully paid under the guarantee. Surety cannot claim the claim made in the Form C of Rs.10862,22,74,000/- on the basis of settlement amount which is claimed to be given by the Guarantor - Modern Terry Towel of Rs.19,44,96,000/-, this itself speak the intention of the Appellant. The facts and circumstances and materials which have been brought on the record clearly indicate that the whole transaction by Assignor No.1 is not a genuine transaction. As held by the Adjudicating Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -17- Authority, the Appellant has not filed its financial statements/ bank accounts to show any payment towards any of the assignments to give credence to assignment in favour of the Appellant. Appellant having not been able to prove any payment towards three assignments which is claimed by the Appellant by filing balance sheet or any other proof, clearly indicate that the documents were prepared only for the purpose of filing claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor without there being any genuine transaction.

13. We may also look into the second assignment made by M/s Pallavi Synthetics Private Limited. According to own case of the Appellant, debt dues of Mashreq Bank were settled in Section 7 application filed by Mashreq Bank by M/s K3N and Adarsh Pratishthan demonstrating payment of settlement amount of Rs.4.66 Crore. How M/s Pallavi Synthetics Private Limited acquired right to assign debt to Appellant is the mystery which has not been unfolded by any documents and claim on the basis of said assignment has rightly been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.

14. The third assignment is assignment by M/s Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Appellant's case was that financial assistance was taken by the Corporate Debtor from Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.45 Crores, on the basis of which principal amount, assignment was made in favour of the Appellant on 30.04.2017. The amount of Rs.45 Crores which has been claimed to be financial assistance by M/s Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. was fully dispelled by the documents brought on the record. It was brought before the Adjudicating Authority that amount of Rs.45 Crores was the amount of share application money brought by the Promoter and other associates, as reflected in the notes Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -18- of the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor ending 31.03.2005. It has been submitted by the Corporate Debtor that financial statement of Midas Powertech does not substantiate debt of Rs.45 Crores received by the Corporate Debtor. BIFR - Debt Restructuring Scheme between 2004-2017 has noted Rs.45 Crores as share application money received from the Promoter which was pending allotment. Financial statement of Appellant ending 31.03.2017 does not envisage refund of the share application money. There being no debt of Rs.45 Crores taken from Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd., assignment of Rs.670 Crores for debt by Midas Powertech Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Appellant is without any basis and foundation.

15. The Adjudicating Authority after considering in detail the entire facts and circumstances and material on record has rightly come to the conclusion that none of the claim submitted by the Appellant in Form C could have been admitted in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Claims submitted by the Appellant were all non-genuine claim and have rightly been rejected.

16. We also are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly directed the Resolution Professional to send all related papers received from the Applicant, Financial Creditors, Documents in his possession and details of such transactions to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for examination/ investigation. We concur with the said findings. Let copy of this order be also forwarded to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in reference/continuance of the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority, to take appropriate action in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023 -19-

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) NEW DELHI 28th July, 2023 Archana Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.578 of 2023

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal