Cinema Ventures Private Limited vs Sanjay Sodhi on 19 April, 2023

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Cinema Ventures Private Limited vs Sanjay Sodhi on 19 April, 2023

This Contempt Application has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 27.07.2022 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022. The facts giving rise to the Contempt Application are:

(i) The Cinema Ventures Pvt. Ltd. had filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022, challenging the order dated Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 1 05.07.2022 admitting Company Petition No.160/IBC/MB/ 2021 filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "IBC") by an Operational Creditor - Sanjay Sodhi. The Operational Creditor in Application under Section 9 claimed operational debt due and payable by the Corporate Debtor - Cinema Ventures Pvt.

Ltd. The amount claimed in the Application was INR 1,16,79,622/-

(ii) In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 an IA No.2448 of 2022 was filed, bringing on record a settlement dated 14.07.2022. Both the parties prayed that Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 be decided in terms of the settlement. This Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2022 allowed IA No.2448 of 2022 and permitted the Operational Creditor to withdraw the Section 9 Application. The order dated 05.07.2022 was withdrawn.

(iii) As per the Settlement Agreement between the parties, the Corporate Debtor undertook to make payments as per the Schedule given in the settlement. The settlement contemplated that on making payment of INR 1,16,79,622/-, the Operational Creditor shall handover the keys of the premises within twenty-four hours. The settlement also contemplated that Corporate Debtor shall undertake to make the Screen Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 2 operational by 20.07.2022. Monthly payments were also contemplated under the settlement.

2. The Applicant - Operational Creditor filed this Contempt Application alleging non-compliance of the order dated 27.07.2022 by the Corporate Debtor. The case of the Applicant in the Contempt Application is that on 17.08.2022 the Applicant sent an email to the Contemnor for the non- payment of amount stated in the Settlement Agreement for month of August 2022. The Applicant further pleads that Contemnor had failed to remit the conducting charges after July 2022 for Paras Mall, Zirakpur making the aforesaid allegation, the Contempt Application has been filed.

3. In the Contempt Application, the notices were issued by an order dated 09.09.2022. The Contemnor appeared and has filed reply. The Applicant filed additional documents with I.A. No.3542 of 2022. The Respondent also filed two additional affidavits on 10.11.2022 and 11.01.2023. An IA No.4842 of 2022 has also been filed by the Applicant, praying for revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the Respondent.

4. We have heard Mr. Swarendu Chatterjee, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent.

5. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is clear disobedience of the undertaking given by the Respondent in order dated 27.07.2022. The settlement entered between the parties was obligatory as Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 3 was undertaken by the Respondent in this Court on 27.07.2022. The Respondent - Corporate Debtor breached the undertaking by not making the payment as per the Schedule provided in the Settlement Agreement apart from payments of INR 1,16,79,622/- paid by 11.07.2022 and payment of INR 58,20,378 on 18.07.2022, no further payments were made. In spite of email dated 17.08.2022, no payments were made. The Contemnor having willfully and deliberately breached the undertaking, is liable to be punished for contempt.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that there is no willful breach of undertaking given by the Respondent. The Respondent has already made the payment of INR 1,16,79,622/- and further payment of INR 58,20,378/-. The Agreement contemplated that keys of the premises shall be handed over within twenty-four hours, but the keys were handed over in 20 days and when the premises were inspected, it was noticed that the premises was closed for 2 years, which required the Respondent to incur massive expenditure. Post recommencement, it came to the knowledge of the Respondent that the said premises had serious issues concerning its structural stability. The Respondent decided that a structural audit and roof audit is to be carried out. An independent inspection of the premises disclosed that there were football/ cricket turf court on the roof, rusted columns, no waterproofing and multiple holes dug on the roof. The email dated 17.08.2022 was immediately replied by the email dated 30.08.2022. In the email dated 30.08.2022, the Respondent communicated that inspite of two payments, Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 4 keys were never physically handed over. The keys were kept in the possession of the Shop Owners Welfare Association, who took 20 days to handover the keys. The other details and efforts taken by the Respondent were communicated along with structural stability issue. There is no willful disobedience on the part of Respondent and Contempt Application deserves to be dismissed.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent further submits that the Applicant has already initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Court of Learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Special Commercial Court at Gurugram for recovery of entire dues of INR 7,53,33,234/-. Notice was sent in the arbitration case fixing the date 17.02.2023. It is submitted that Contempt Application deserves to be rejected.

8. The learned Counsel for both the parties have relied on several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their respective submissions, which shall be referred to hereinafter while considering the submissions in detail.

9. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022, which was filed by Cinema Ventures Pvt. Ltd. challenging admission order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was disposed of on 27.07.2022. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order, following was directed:

"2. I.A. No. 2448 of 2022 has been filed by the Appellant signed by Operational Creditor bringing on record a settlement dated 14.07.2022. It is prayed that parties having settled the matter, the Application filed Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 5 under Section 9 be permitted to be withdrawn. Mr. Devarajan Raman, appearing for the IRP submits that an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs, as was directed by the Impugned Order, has already been deposited.

3. In view of the aforesaid, we allow I.A. No. 2442 of 2022 and permit the Operational Creditor to withdraw the Application. Order dated 5th July, 2022 stands withdrawn. The amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, under the Impugned Order, shall be the fee and expenses of IRP. Parties agree that both of them shall comply with the terms of the settlement."

10. The Terms of Settlement between the parties dated 14.07.2022 have been brought on record. It is useful to notice paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Settlement Agreement, which is to the following effect:

"1. The Parties, with the proactive participation, have arrived at an amicable solution resolving their disputes and differences with the sole motive to continue with their nuptial ties on the following terms and conditions:-

The following shall be the payment Schedule as mutually agreed between Sl. Amount (INR) Date of payment I 1,16,79,622 11.07.2022 II 58,20,378 18.07.2022 (within 7 days from date of first payment) III 1,25,00,000 17.01.2023 [within 6 months from the aforesaid date of payment at sl. No.(II)] Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 6 IV 1,00,00,000 17.07.2023 [within 12 months from the date of the payment at Sl.No.(II)]

2. That it has been mutually agreed between the Parties herein that the First Party shall hand over the keys of the premises with twenty-four hours of the receipt of the payment of INR 1,16,79,622.

3. That, for the further payment of the balance amount of INR 2.10 Crore, the Second Party herein agrees to pay the aforesaid sum of INR 2.10 Crore in TWELVE (12) EQUATED MONTHLY INSTALMENTS wherein the Second Party shall remit an amount of INR 17,50,000 (Indian rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifty Thousand) for twelve months starting from July 2022 for which the payment shall be made on 10.08.2022 along with the monthly rent/ conducting charges of INR 25,36,420 (Indian Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand and Four Hundred Twenty)."

11. We may also notice one more Clause of the Agreement, i.e., Termination of Agreement, which is to the following effect:

"TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT The event of default/ breach as defined in Clause (I) of this Settlement Agreement shall lead to revival of the proceedings initiated in Company Petition (IB) No.160 of 2021 under Section 9 of the Code before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai in addition to Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 7 the proceedings for contempt for breach of this Settlement Agreement."

12. There is no dispute between the parties that as per Settlement Agreement between the parties dated 14.07.2022, payment of INR 1,16,79,622/- was made by the Respondent on 11.07.2022 itself and further, another payment of INR 58,20,378/- was made on 20.07.2022. The above payments clearly indicate that Respondent has acted in compliance of the Settlement Agreement. The issues between the parties arose in August 2022 when an email was sent on 17.08.2022 by the Applicant, complaining non-payment. In email dated 17.08.2022 sent by the Applicant, it was stated that conducting charges of July 2022 was not paid. The Respondent was directed to make the payment by 20.08.2022, failing which necessary steps to be undertaken. The email dated 17.08.2022 was replied by Respondent on 30.08.2022, which was addressed to the Applicant, wherein following was stated:

"To, Mr. Sanjay Sodhi, Sub: Reply to the email dated 17th August, 2022 purporting to Non-Payment of Conducting Charges and Violation of Orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 27.05.2022 and Hon'ble NCLAT dated 27.07.2022.

Dear Sir, We write to you in response to your mail dated 17.08.2022. We wish to categorically state that none of the contents of your email under reply are admitted or Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 8 deemed to be admitted by us unless specifically so stated by us in the reply hereunder.

We draw your attention to the Settlement Agreement executed on 14th July 2022 and state that the admitted liability of Rs.1,16,79,622/- was disbursed and paid thereof as per the Schedule mentioned under the Settlement Agreement on 11th July, 2022, confirmation of which was received at your end on 15th July, 2022. The second tranche of Rs.58,620,378/- was duly paid as per the Schedule of the Settlement Agreement on 20th July, 2022.

Even after the receipt of payment of the aforementioned amounts at your end, the keys were never physically handed over to any representatives of the Cinema Ventures Private Limited. The keys were actually kept in possession of the Shop Owners Welfare Association represented by Mr. Pankaj Josen, who was specifically instructed by Mr. Sanjay Sodhi to hold back and not handover the keys until further instructions. The keys were supposed to be handed over to us in 24 hours, which on the contrary took 20 days to make a complete handover. We were primarily exploring and negotiating with the CAM agency to inspect and reopen the premises and to further ascertain the costs to be deployed in possible reparations.

To reopen any Cinema after a prolonged closure, it takes massive amount of capital for the same and recommence the business operations. Due to the closure of the premises for a period of 2 years, the company had to incur huge costs for cleaning and sanitizing, reparation of the projectors, mobilization of the staff members, Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 9 negotiation with the vendors, and such major functions alike which are cardinal prerequisites to recommence the business operations. All these functions and processes are a time consuming affair and took at least 30 days. Due to the aforementioned compelling circumstances of getting ingress after 20 days from the proposed day of admission, the entire process to get on track was derailed. Further to this, it was a pre requisite of Cam Agency to sign settlement agreement covering all the charges from Closure till the commencement of operations. There was lot of back and forth on this agreement on account incorrect charges being levied that consumed a lot of time resulting in delaying the finalization of settlement agreement and commencement of operations.

We also state that on numerous occasions the CEO, Finance Head of Business Operations and other representatives of CVPL have reached out to you via telephonic calls and emails, constantly reminding you for adherence to provide us with the possession of the property to inspect and thereon allow us to recommence our business operations. We in advance, via the appropriate channels communicated to you that on delayed reopening/ recommencing the business operations, there could be a potential delay for makings the payments.

Even after explaining to you time and again, the reasons behind delayed start of the cinema hall, the Company has always attempted to stick to the payment schedule.

We always have had high regards for the Tribunal's decision and orders and have never overstepped the Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 10 authority. We have always been crystal clear about the intent of repayment and clearing our dues even though the property hadn't been operational where the generation of revenues was NIL. On the other hand, we have spent an amount of Rs. Forty Lakhs in repairing and restoring the property apart from the upfront payment of the CAM Agency.

Furthermore, post commencement, it came to our notice that the premises/ building had structural stability issues as it was closed during the Covid period till now i.e. almost two and half years. In lieu of the same, an independent inspection of the premises is in process by a Qualified Engineer. A copy of the said report will be shared with you in due course.

In spite of the above hurdles and challenges faced we have made the payments.

Authorised signatory.

Cinema Ventures Private Limited"

13. In the reply, which has been filed by the Respondent, the facts which have been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent have been reiterated and the reasons for not been able to make payments, subsequent to two payments made by the Respondent, have also been indicated. The Applicant has submitted that the Screen was made functional for the Respondent, whereas the Respondent submits that the Screen was made functional for two months only and thereafter due to several issues including structural stability, the Screen is not functional. Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 11

14. The learned Counsel for the Applicant in support of his submission has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 564 - Suman Chadha and Anr. vs. Central Bank of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case was considering Appeal against the order passed by the Delhi High Court, convicting the Contemnors with simple imprisonment for three months along with fine of Rs.2000/-. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that in the above case also there was breach of undertaking given by the Contemnor for which the conviction was ordered. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following in paragraph 25, 26, and 27:

"25. It is true that an undertaking given by a party should be seen in the context in which it was made and (i) the benefits that accrued to the undertaking party; and (ii) the detriment/injury suffered by the counter party. It is also true that normally the question whether a party is guilty of contempt is to be seen in the specific context of the disobedience and the wilful nature of the same and not on the basis of the conduct subsequent thereto. While it is open to the court to see whether the subsequent conduct of the alleged contemnor would tantamount to an aggravation of the contempt already committed, the very determination of an act of contempt cannot simply be based upon the subsequent conduct.

26. But the subsequent conduct of the party may throw light upon one important aspect namely whether it was just the inability of the party to honour the commitment or it was part of a larger design to hoodwink the court.

Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 12

28. The 1st contention of Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the failure to honour a commitment made while securing a conditional order of stay, cannot be treated as wilful disobedience, could have been accepted by us, but for the fact that the petitioners issued post-dated cheques purportedly in compliance of the undertaking, but allowed them to be dishonoured. The story cooked up for the dishonor of the cheques having been found to be false, it is not open to the petitioners to raise the contention that there was no wilful disobedience."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the contention of the Contemnor that failure to honour the commitment made while securing a conditional order of stay, cannot be treated as willful disobedience and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it could have been accepted but for the acts of Contemnor taken thereafter.

16. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 3 SCC 373 - Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director ONGC Ltd. and Ors. vs. M. George Ravishekaran and Ors. where the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle while punishing for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In paragraph 19 of the judgment, following has been laid down:

"19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 13 could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 703] , V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju [(2004) 13 SCC 610 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 907] , Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami [(2008) 5 SCC 339] and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1 SCC 613] ."

Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 14

17. Another judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is (2022) 1 SCC 101 - Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and Ors. vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and Anr.. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has laid down that civil contempt is a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. In paragraph 8, following has been laid down:

"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 15 and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."

18. The law is well settled that jurisdiction for punishing a Contemnor can be exercised only when willful disobedience is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

19. When we look into the facts of the present case, it is clear that in contemplation of the Settlement Agreement, payments were made by the Respondent and after the Settlement Agreement was entered on 14.07.2022, further payment of INR 58,20,378/- odds was made. For non- payments thereafter, the Respondent has come up with the plea as has been communicated by the Respondent to the Applicant by email dated 30.08.2022, as extracted above and other facts as pleaded in the reply filed to this Contempt Application. The facts and pleadings by the parties indicate that there were some issues between the parties regarding the premises for which conducting charges were required to be paid by the Respondent. The Screen could not run beyond two months and due to several issues including structural stability the Cinema premises could not run. In the contempt proceedings we are not required to determine the rights of the respective parties qua the initial agreement between the parties and the claim made by each other. Only question which needs to be considered is as to whether the act of the Respondent can be treated to Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 16 be act of willful disobedience of the undertaking given before the Court in order dated 27.07.2022. When we look into the overall facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the facts and circumstances do not indicate that there is any willful disobedience by the Respondent in discharging their obligations under the Settlement Agreement. It does appear that as per Settlement Agreement, certain payments have been made and issues arose between the parties after taking the possession of the premises by the Respondent and inspection and reports were obtained by the Respondent regarding the condition of the premises and structural stability.

20. In the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to proceed to punish the Respondent for any contempt of order of this Court dated 27.07.2022. We, thus, decline to proceed to punish the Respondent for contempt. We, however, make it clear that insofar as inter se rights of the parties regarding claims, we have not expressed any opinion and the same can be examined and decided in appropriate Forum.

21. Now, we come to IA No.4842 of 2022 filed by the Applicant for revival of the CIRP against the Respondent. We have noticed one of the clauses in the Agreement under the heading 'Termination of Agreement', which provided that in the event of default/ breach, the Settlement Agreement shall lead to revival of the proceedings initiated in Company Petition (IB) No.160 of 2021 filed under Section 9 of the Code. The IA No.4842 of 2022 has been filed on the basis of the aforesaid clause seeking revival of the proceeding under Section 9. The Application is resisted by the Respondent. Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 17

22. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submits that Section 9 Application was filed for an amount of INR 1,16,79,622/-, which is clear from Section 9 Application filed by the Operational Creditor and there is no dispute between the parties that the aforesaid amount has been paid by the Respondent, which fact is an admitted fact. It is submitted that when entire amount for which Section 9 Application was filed and proceedings were initiated, has been paid, no purpose will be served in revival of Section 9 Application. It is submitted that with regard to further claims of the Operational Creditor, the Operational Creditor has already initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Courts, hence, the prayer of the revival of the CIRP needs to be rejected.

23. We have noticed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties in IA No.4842 of 2022.

24. From the materials brought on record, it is clear that Section 9 proceedings were initiated by the Operational Creditor for a total amount of INR 1,16,79,622/-. It is true that settlement entered between the parties on 14.07.2022 was for an amount of INR 6,09,68,538/-, which was the amount claimed to be in default from 1st November, 2019 to 23rd March, 2020. The total debt in Section 9 Application having been paid, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served in directing revival of Section 9 Application and proceeding of CIRP in respect of Corporate Debtor. The payments, having been made for which Section 9 Application was filed, it Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 18 is clear that Respondent has capacity to make the payment and no CIRP needs to be undertaken at this stage. We further notice that with regard to claim by the Operational Creditor, proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been initiated as noted above, where notices have also been issued to M/s Cinema Ventures Private Limited, where claim of both the parties shall be examined and determined. This has also weighed with us in not reviving Section 9 proceedings initiated by the Operational Creditor.

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 as well as IA No.4842 of 2022. We make it clear that in these proceedings, we have not expressed any opinion with regard to claim of either of the parties as raised, arising out of the contract between the parties undertaken from time to time. The said issues need to be examined by the appropriate Forum without being influenced by any observations made in this order. No order as to costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) NEW DELHI 19th April, 2023 Ashwani Contempt Case (AT) No.19 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.836 of 2022 19

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal