National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Aramco Private Limited vs Ideal Real Estates Private Limited on 19 December, 2024
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 &
I.A. No. 4083, 4085 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Aramco Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Ideal Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kaushik Banerjee,
Ms. Kriti Gera, Mr. Sourav Roy, Mr. Pranav Bafna,
Mr. Anshu Deshpande, Mr. Shayak Chakraborty,
Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury,
Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Ms. Priyata Chakraborty,
Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral) 19.12.2024: This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.04.2024 by which RST.A (IBC)/17(KB) 2023 filed in C.P. (IB) No. 1066/KB/2019 by the appellant for revival of the main Company Petition i.e. C.P. (IB) No. 1066/KB/2019 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (application to the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor namely, 'Ideal Real Estates Private Limited' for the resolution of an Cont'd..../ -2- amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.
3. During the pendency of the application the parties entered into an agreement on 07.06.2022 for the settlement of their dispute in which both the parties had agreed as follows:
"3. It is hereby recorded, declared and confirmed that both parties agree and accept that the Second Party shall make payment amount of Rs.1,92,88,886.00 (Rupees One Crore Ninety Two Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Six Only) (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Amount) to the First Party in 35 (Thirty Five) monthly instalments. It is also agreed between the parties that no payment other than above is due whatsoever and cannot and shall not be claimed by the First Party.
4. The First Party confirm that upon payment of the above said settlement amount the First Party shall have no claim and/or demand in any manner whatsoever in respect to the loan given by the First Party to the second party and as claimed by the First Party.
5. The Parties to this agreement agree that the Second party will transfer the Instalment amount to the First Party by way of NEFT/RTGS. The details of the payment schedule is as follows:
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -3- Date of payment Amount 10.08.2022 2,50,000 20.09.2022 2,50,000 10.10.2022 2,50,000 20.11.2022 2,50,000 10.12.2022 2,50,000 20.01.2023 2,50,000 10.02.2023 2,50,000 20.03.2023 2,50,000 10.04.2023 2,50,000 20.05.2023 2,50,000 10.06.2023 2,50,000 30.06.2023 2,50,000 20.07.2023 2,50,000 10.08.2023 2,50,000 30.08.2023 2,50,000 20.09.2023 2,50,000 10.10.2023 2,50,000 30.10.2023 2,50,000 20.11.2023 2,50,000 10.12.2023 2,50,000 30.12.2023 2,50,000 20.01.2024 2,50,000 10.02.2024 2,50,000 28.02.2024 2,50,000 20.03.2024 2,50,000 10.04.2024 2,50,000 30.04.2024 7,50,000 20.05.2024 15,00,000 10.06.2024 15,10,651 30.06.2024 15,00,000 20.07.2024 15,23,871 10.08.2024 15,00,000 30.08.2024 15,00,000 20.09.2024 15,00,000 01.10.2024 15,04,364 Total 1,92,88,886
7. The parties to this agreement agree that in case of default of payment by the Second Party in above mentioned payment schedule an interest of 18% of the default amount will be payable immediately to the First Party.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -4-
9. In default of the performance of the agreed terms of settlement by the second party the first party will be free to apply to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata to restore the Company Petition being C.P.(IB) No. 1066/KB/2019 and/or instigate any further legal action as per the laws of the land over and above the steps in regards to this default.
13. The parties to this agreement agree that upon execution of this agreement the First Party will forthwith withdraw the instant application being C.P (I.B.) No. 1066/KB/2019 pending before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata."
4. When the case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 08.06.2022, counsel for both the parties were present and they jointly submitted that the total amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- has been agreed to be paid in instalments. Meaning thereby the Corporate Debtor accepted the debt and since it was not in a position to pay the amount in lump sum, therefore, agreed to pay the same in instalments to the Financial Creditor/ Appellant who accepted the same.
5. The said settlement agreement dated 07.06.2022 was also produced before the court which was taken on record by the Tribunal and thereafter in view of the statement made that the respondent shall Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -5- pay the amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- in instalments, the Financial Creditor having been satisfied with the said statement, believing the Corporate Debtor that he will honour his words, allowed the withdrawal of petition and as such the following order was passed:
"ORDER
1. Ld. Counsel on both sides present.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the total amount of Rs.1,92,88,886/- has been agreed to be paid in instalments. Let the settlement agreement be taken on record. In view of the above statements, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Financial Creditor seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. C.P. is disposed of as withdrawn.
3. File be consigned to the records."
6. The case set up by the appellant is that there was default in the payment of the instalment by the respondent, therefore, the appellant filed RST.A (IBC)/17(KB) 2023 before the Tribunal in which the following prayers were made:
"a) Company Petition Number being C.P. (I.B) No. 1066/KB/2019 be revived and restored to its original file and number against the Corporate Debtor in view of the settlement having being failed;
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -6-
b) Adjudicate and dispose off the pending C.P. (I.B) No. 1066/KB/2019 against the Corporate Debtor;
c) Such other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper;"
7. In the application for restoration notice was issued and reply was filed by the respondent. Ld. Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the main petition i.e. C.P. (IB) No. 1066/KB/2019 was withdrawn without obtaining liberty to get it revived in case of any breach. The relevant part of the impugned order read as under:
"In as much as no liberty was sought for on 08.06.2022 and the CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019 was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to get it revived, in our considered opinion, the prayer for restoration of CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019 is not maintainable and hence not entertainable.
The CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019 was dismissed as withdrawn recording settlement between the parties. No liberty was granted by this Tribunal to revive the CP(IB)/1066(KB)2019 in case the Corporate Debtor fails to acknowledge the terms of settlement or fails to pay in terms of the settlement."
8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid impugned order, the present appeal has been filed.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -7-
9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has committed a patent error of law in dismissing the application on the pretext that at the time when the main petition was withdrawn, in terms of the order dated 08.06.2022, the appellant did not seek liberty to file application for its revival. Ld. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in the settlement agreement, taken on record by the Tribunal, there is a condition that in case of breach by the Corporate Debtor of the terms and conditions of the settlement, the appellant shall have an automatic right to revive the main petition. In this regard, he has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of "Pooja Finlease Ltd. v. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 103 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022 and IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. [2023 SCC Online NCLAT 225].
10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, while vehemently opposing the present appeal, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order which may call for any interference by this court. He has submitted that though the settlement agreement was taken on record but there was no application filed by the appellant with a prayer that in case of breach of any part of the settlement much less the payment of amount as agreed, the appellant shall be at liberty to seek revival nor Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -8- any such liberty was granted by the Tribunal. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "SRLK Enterprises LLP v. JALAN Transolutions (India) Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 294 of 2021 decided on 08.04.2021. He has also relied upon a division bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Mohd. Amin v. Mohd. Iqbal [2009 SCC Online Del 861:
(2009) 158 DLT 531].
11. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the present application filed under Section 7 by the appellant cannot proceed because there is an another case filed under Section 7 by "Oarsman Credit private Limited Vs. Ideal Real Estates Private Limited" bearing CP (IB) No. 127/KB/2023 which was admitted on 05.04.2024. It is further submitted that the order dated 05.04.2024 was taken in appeal by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor bearing Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 696 of 2024 in which stay was granted on 09.04.2024 to the effect that "In the meantime, the order dated 06.04.2024 shall remain stayed." The said appeal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 696 of 2024 has been disposed of on 18.12.2024 relegating the parties therein, to file an appropriate application on the basis of settlement arrived at between them, before the Tribunal in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Glas Trust Company LLC vs. Byju Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -9- Raveendran & Ors. [2024 SCC Online SC 3032 in Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024]" but the order of stay has been ordered to be continued which means that the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor still exists and in this regard he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Ashok Kumar Tyagi v. UCO Bank rendered in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1323 of 2022 decided on 21.11.2022. It is contended that there is a difference between stay and quashing because while allowing the appeal by quashing the order wipes out the order but while staying the operation of the order against which the appeal has been filed the order still survives. He has therefore submitted that the application under Section 7 having been filed against the same Corporate Debtor is not maintainable.
12. In reply to this argument counsel for the appellant has submitted that at this stage the appellant is not pressing the application under Section 7 rather the appeal is against the order by which he has been nonsuited to enter into the court on the ground that at the time when the main petition, filed under Section 7 was withdrawn on the basis of settlement agreement, he did not take permission of the court for its revival in case of breach of terms and conditions of the settlement. It is further submitted that the arguments raised by counsel for the respondent may be of any use to him only when this appeal is allowed and Section 7 application is restored to its original number.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -10-
13. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
14. Filing of the petition by appellant under Section 7 and the disposal of the said petition by Tribunal on 08.06.2022 is not in dispute and that there is a settlement agreement between the parties dated 07.06.2022. It is also not in dispute that the appellant, but for the settlement agreement, would not have withdrawn the application filed under Section 7. It is also a fact that the settlement agreement was taken on record. It is also not in dispute that at the time when the settlement agreement was taken on record there was no objection raised by the respondent that the settlement agreement cannot be taken on record in court rather the appellant should have filed an application in this regard. The only thing missing is that the Tribunal, while taking on record the settlement agreement and recorded the statement that the parties have settled their dispute at Rs.1,92,88,886/- and respondent has agreed to be pay did not record that the appellant can get the main case revived in case respondent do not honour its commitment in terms of settlement agreement.
15. This is not the first case before this court in which such type of situation has arisen where a dishonest Corporate Debtor has raised all sorts of pleas to seek dismissal of the application filed by the appellant. In the case of Pooja Finlease Ltd. v. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) the same situation had arisen and this court had allowed the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -11- appeal and set aside the impugned order. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are as under:
"4. The case of the Appellant is that there is default committed by the Corporate Debtor, consequently, he filed application seeking revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is terms of Clause 8 of the Consent Terms, which application has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that when Clause 8 of the Consent Terms contemplate revival of CIRP in the event of any default of the terms of the Consent Terms on the part of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have revived the Section 7 petition and Adjudicating Authority has committed error in rejecting the revival application.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there was no liberty granted in the order dated 05.02.2020 to revive CIRP, hence, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application for revival. He has also referred to judgment of this Tribunal in 'Krishna Garg and Anr. vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.' which has also been relied by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 7 of the impugned order.
6. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Consent Terms in Clause 8 as has been extracted above clearly entitle the Financial Creditor to revive the Section 7 petition in event any default of the terms of the Consent Terms. Further, the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -12- order dated 05.02.2020 cannot be read as an order by which Consent Terms has not been taken on record when by the said order application filed alongwith the consent terms under Rule 11 of NCLT rules, 2016 was taken on record and was allowed. When the application was allowed in terms of the consent terms, Clause 8 itself shall be treated to be part of the order which shall entitle the Financial Creditor to revive the petition in the event of any default.
8. Judgment of this Tribunal which has been relied by the Respondent in 'Krishna Garg and Anr. vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.' was a case where neither settlement terms were filed nor the same were brought on the record. The facts in the present case are distinguishable from the above case as Consent Terms were filed and also were taken on record by the Adjudicating Authority. When the Adjudicating Authority allowed the application filed, the Consent Terms were also taken record and the Financial Creditor was fully entitled to seek revival of the Section 7 petition in event of default of consent terms.
9. We, thus, allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2021 and revive the Section 7 petition i.e. C.P. (IB) No. 2340 of 2019 which may be heard by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law."
16. Similarly, in the case of IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (supra) this court had noticed that separate consent terms were executed between the parties and the said consent terms were Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -13- brought on record and while allowing the appeal, this Court passed the order as follows:
"17. The adjudicating Authority while rejecting the revival application as noted above observed that the settlement was arrived in between the parties outside the Tribunal. In the present case, the Settlement was arrived and submitted before the Adjudicating Authority which was noticed in the Order dated 09.02.2022 hence the Judgment of SRLK Enterprises LLP is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In paragraph 6 of the Judgment, following has been observed:
"6. Going through the Impugned Order dated 26th February, 2021 which seeks to recall the Order dated 09th May, 2019 which also we have seen, we find it difficult to take a different view from the Adjudicating Authority. There is difference between withdrawal simplicitor making statement that parties have settled. It is different when bringing the settlement on record, and making it a part of the Order of withdrawal liberty is taken and brought on record to restore the proceedings in case of default. IBC is not a recovery proceeding where because the money or part of it has not come, the party may repeatedly come to the Court. Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that no Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -14- liberty to revive was there and so declined to interfere. The Appellant would be at liberty to pursue other remedies in law"
18. What has been observed in paragraph 6 itself makes a clear distinction between withdrawal simplicitor making statement that parties have settled and bringing on record settlement. This Tribunal itself has recognized two separate categories. Present case falls in the category where settlement has been brought on record. Thus, Judgment of this Tribunal in SRLK Enterprises LLP does not help the Respondent.
19. We thus in the facts of the present case are of the view that. Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the revival application 3196 of 2022 when the consent term itself contemplates a clause for revival in event of default and default having been committed by the Corporate Debtor, rejection of revival is to deny the Financial Creditor rightful remedy. Nan-mention of specific liberty in the Order is inconsequential in view of the clear terms in the settlement which was the basis of withdrawal of Company Petition.
20. We thus are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting I.A. No. 3196 of 2022. Sufficient cause has been made out for allowing this Appeal and setting aside the Order dated 21.12.2022. Consequently, I.A. No. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -15- 3196 of 2022 is allowed and the C.P. (IB) No. 4412(MB)/2019 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority to proceed in accordance with law."
17. There is a another case of this Court though cited by counsel for the respondent i.e. "Desh Bhushan Jain, Erstwhile Director of Angel Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhay Kumar, IRP of Angel Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.124 of 2024 decided on 20.05.2024 in which the issue was that the application under Section 7 was withdrawn on the ground of settlement between the parties and then a fresh application was filed on the basis of settlement amount agreed in the settlement agreement. The objection was raised that the application under Section 7 cannot be filed on the basis of the amount settled in the settlement agreement. In this regard, this Court has observed as under:
"19. We are not at all impressed with the argument of the Appellant which has been raised with the support of the decision in the case of Raj Singh Gehlot (Supra) that the application under Section 7 cannot be filed on the basis of the settlement because the said judgment is not applicable. In the case of Raj Singh Gehlot (Supra) the petition under Section 7 was filed on the basis I of settlement agreement dated 07.04.2017 whereas in the present case, the first petition was not filed on the basis of settlement agreement rather it was filed Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -16- on the basis of the debt due and default committed by the CD. The debt and default was admitted by the Corporate Debtor and hence, approached the Financial Creditors for entering into a settlement to make the payment in instalments through post- dated cheques both in regard to the principal as well as interest component. The Financial Creditors believed the Corporate Debtor and entered into the agreement and further on the asking of the CD filed a joint application in the first petition not only to bring on record the settlement but also to withdraw the first petition being sanguine of the fact that CD would keep its words and shall honour all the post-dated cheques in time but they were not aware of the intention of the CD as it had not made payment beyond Rs. 1,10,00,000 and were still in the arrears of more than Rs. 3 Cr. The Financial Creditor then filed the second petition of the reduced debt about which the default is not in question, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly admitted the application.
20. At this stage, we would like to observe that if this kind of tricks, played by the CD with the FC are allowed and the plea raised by the Appellant is accepted that the second petition on the ground of settlement agreement is not maintainable then it would give a premium to the unscrupulous CD to get the petition filed under Section 7 withdrawn on the basis of the settlement Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -17- which was not to be ultimately followed., Definitely, this kind of attitude and act on the part of the CD is not appreciated.
21. In so far as the issue raised by the Appellant about the amount of Rs. 87 Lac. which has been paid out of the court during the pendency of this appeal to be adjusted in the amount which is stated to be due is concerned, suffice it to say that the Appellant has not brought on record any writing/ agreement in this regard that the said amount has been paid towards the adjustment of the principal amount otherwise the Financial Creditor is entitled to adjust the amount towards the payment of interest component at the first instance.
22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The amount deposited by the Appellant in this court by way of FDR is ordered to be returned to the Appellant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order by the Registrar after due verification."
18. The argument of the respondent is that in both the cases, namely, Pooja Finlease Ltd. v. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) and IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (supra), an application was filed before the Court to bring on record the settlement Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -18- deed which is conspicuous by its absence in the present case. Therefore, the said agreement cannot be looked into.
19. In our considered opinion the argument raised is totally unwarranted because the respondent has not denied that there was no settlement between the parties. The respondent did not raise any objection before the Tribunal when the settlement was produced before the Tribunal and taken on record by the Tribunal, that it should have been brought on record through a proper application. Though this objection is raised before this court for the sake of objection otherwise there is no merit in this objection. In our considered opinion, the respondent is a dis-honest person who has entered into settlement with the appellant at that time when Section 7 application was filed because he knew that if Section 7 application is pushed into CIRP then he would face numerous other Financial Creditor once the CoC is constituted. In order to avoid that situation to happen, he persuaded and misled the appellant that we will make the entire payment in instalments. It was the magnanimity of the appellant to have entered into the settlement with such a dis-honest person at that time otherwise had it aware about his intentions that he is not likely to honour his commitment, it would not have entered into settlement to face this kind of unnecessary litigation to spend huge money.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -19-
20. The Judgment relied upon by the respondent in the case of SRLK Enterprises LLP v. JALAN Transolutions (India) Ltd. (supra) is also of no consequence because this Judgment has already been discussed in the earlier decision of this court in the case of IDBI Trausteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (supra).
21. The Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court 'Mohd. Amin v. Mohd. Iqbal' (supra), relied upon by the Respondent is also not applicable to the facts of this case because that was a case regarding interpretation of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and in that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that:
"We find that the basis of the compromise application is the Agreement dated 25.2.1991. The compromise, thus, envisages in Clause 11 that the Agreement between the parties that the suit would be withdrawn. Thus, the parties were conscious of the fact that having entered into the compromise, no decree was to be prayed before the Court, but the suit was to be withdrawn. The application filed by the parties, though EFA (OS) No. 15 of 2008 Page No. 8 of 10 under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, prayed for recording of the compromise between the parties and disposal of the suit. The object of the parties was clear that they wanted to place on record the compromise arrived at between the parties, but did not seek to obtain a Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -20- decree in terms of the compromise, which would be executable, It is in these circumstances that the suit has been dismissed as withdrawn, though the parties were to be bound by the terms of the compromise."
22. Lastly, the issue raised by the respondent about the maintainability of this appeal in the wake of pendency of the proceedings in the case of 'Oarsman Credit private Limited Vs. Ideal Real Estates Private Limited (supra), it is suffice to hold that this is not the stage where the Judgment relied upon by the respondent in the case of Ashok Kumar Tyagi v. UCO Bank (supra) can be pressed. The respondent may be having a right to raise this issue of maintainability of the second application under Section 7 against the same Corporate Debtor but it can be raised only when the application under Section 7 is restored which is not the stage in present case.
23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find merit in present appeal, therefore, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Before parting with this order, we may record our disappointment and anguish in the manner in which these type of cases are pouring in. The respondent in this case had mislead the appellant to enter into a settlement, to which he agreed, probably believing the respondent that he would honour his commitments and pay the amount as agreed in instalments. But at that time it was totally unaware of the intentions of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024 -21- the respondent that he will not, ultimately honour his commitment and force the appellant to pursue this kind of litigation.
24. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the time has come when this court should strictly deal with this kind of unscrupulous and dis-honest Corporate Debtor, by imposing heavy cost, for the unnecessary litigation in which the appellant has been pushed by the respondent/Corporate Debtor, therefore, we impose a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs which shall be paid by the respondent by way of Bank Draft to the appellant within one month from the date of passing of this order.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) [Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) sa/rr Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1137 of 2024