Ashish Mohan Gupta vs Hind Inn And Hotels Ltd. & Anr., Through ...

[Arising out of order dated 31st October, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in CP(IB) No. 168/Chd/CHD/2018]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Aashish Mohan Gupta, H. No. 161, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh .. Appellant

Versus

1. Hind Inn and Hotels Ltd. (Through Its IRP) Regd. Office at: Plot No. 15, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160 002

2. CTC Projects Private Limited, Regd. Office at 11, Feroze Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi- 110 024

Correspondence Address: SCO 818, 1st Floor, Above YES Bank NAC-9, Manimajra Chandigarh- 161 101 .. Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Aakanksha Nehra and Ms. Aditi Pundhir, Advocates

For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand and Ms. Honey Satpal, Advocates for Respondent No. 1

Mr. Vivek Malik, Mr. Vivek Sinha and Mr. Kartikeya Jain, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 1 of 20 JUDGMENT

(12th February, 2020)

KANTHI NARAHARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

The present Appeal arises out of the order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh)

in CP(IB) No. 168/CHD/2018

2. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the Application filed by

Respondent No. 2 herein under Section 9 of Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code (In short 'IBC') against Respondent No. 1 herein. The

Adjudicating Authority at paragraphs 26 & 27 observed as under:

...

"26. "We have gone through the contents of the

application filed in Form No. 5 and find the same to be

complete. As discussed above, there is an unpaid

operational debt amounting to ₹ 24,74,085/- plus

interest @ 18% p.a.. Copy of the work order dated

19.08.2011 is attached as Annexure A1. Moreover,

demand notice in Form No. 3 was also sent on

01.03.2018 stating that the amount due from the

corporate debtor to the operational creditor is ₹

37,72,979/- including interest. We have held above

that the demand notice in form No. 3 dated 01.03.2018

was properly delivered by the operational creditor and

the reply has been examined above and found to be Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 2 of 20 not acceptable. IRP is not proposed in Part III of Form

No. 5."

27. In view of the satisfaction of the conditions

provided for in Section 9(5)(i) of the Code, we admit the

petition for initiation of the CIRP process in the case of

the Corporate Debtor M/s Hind Inns & Hotels Limited

and direct moratorium and appointment of Interim

Resolution Professional as below:"

...

FACTS:

3. The facts of the case are that the Operational Creditor i.e.,

Respondent No. 2 herein was awarded a work on 19.11.2011 by the

Respondent No. 1-Corporte Debtor for civil work of construction of

Ginjar Hotel at Plot No. 15, Industrial Area, Phase No. 1, Chandigarh.

As per the Work Order dated 19.08.2011 (at page 55), the payment

terms have been mentioned, in Clause-4 of the Payment Terms, the

Retention Money of 5% would be retained from every Running Account

Bill and the release of Retention Money as per clause 8 i.e., terms of

payment of tender document mentioned therein (page 61). It is the case

of the Respondent No. 2- Operational Creditor that the Corporate

Debtor, in terms of Work Order, 5% of the amount of every Running

Bill was retained as Retention Money which was to be released after

completion of Defects Liability Period of one year from the date of

award of Completion Certificate and issue of Defect Liability Certificate

to be issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. The

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 3 of 20 claim of the Operational Creditor -Respondent No. 2 herein is that the

Corporate Debtor retained the Retention Money and had not paid the

same even after Defects Liability Period i.e., one-year period

commenced from 31.03.2014 till 01.04.2015. Failing to pay the said

amount, Respondent No. 2 issued a Demand Notice dated 01.03.2018

to the Respondent No. 1 i.e., Corporate Debtor demanding Rs.

24,75,085/- along with 18% interest per annum. In the said Demand

Notice it has been specifically mentioned that prior to the issuance of

Demand Notice, the Director of the Operational Creditor issued letters

dated 10.04.2015, 27.09.2016, 02.03.2017, 24.10.2017 to the

Corporate Debtor regarding payment of the amounts. It is also

specifically mentioned that if the Corporate Debtor has any existence

of dispute or amount unpaid operational debt, the same may be

provided within 10 days of the receipt of the Demand Notice. The

contention of the Respondent No. 2 is that the Corporate Debtor issued

reply dated 17.03.2018 wherein the Corporate Debtor stated that the

Demand Notice dated 01.03.2018 was received by them on

09.03.2018. The stand of the Respondent No. 2 - Operational Creditor

is that they have not raised any dispute in the reply. The Corporate

Debtor took a stand that the bill and Demand Notice is barred by

principles of delay and latches and stated that the claim is stale

beyond limitation as per Limitation Act.

4. Failing to pay the amounts, even after issuance of Demand

Notice, the Operational Creditor filed Application before the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 4 of 20 Adjudicating Authority claiming an amount of Rs. 24,74,085/-. In

Part-4, it is stated that the right to recover Retention Money first

accrued to the Operational Creditor on 01.04.2015.

5. However, it is mentioned that debt fell due from 27.07.2015

when Ginger Hotel sent a mail to the Operational Creditor. The

Adjudicating Authority having considered all aspects in the

Application, admitted the Application and initiated Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process (in short 'CIRP') including declaration

of Moratorium.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted the following

grounds:

i) That the Retention Money does not fall within the

definition of Operational Debt as defined in Section

5(21) of IBC).

ii) Retention Money should have been raised only after

successful completion of work.

iii) The Respondent No. 2 i.e., the Operational Creditor

does not fall within the definition of Operation Creditor

as defined in Section 5(2) of IBC.

iv) The default accrued on 01.04.2013 whereas the

Application was filed before the Adjudicating Authority

i.e., beyond three years and hence the claim is time

barred.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 5 of 20

v) There is pre-existence of dispute. In support of the

grounds, leaned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon

the judgment which will be discussed in later part of

this judgement.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent-

Operational Creditor submitted that the cause of action for release of

retention money commenced on 21.07.2015 and the Application was

filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 27th April, 2018 was within

a period of three years and contended that it is within the period of

limitation. It is submitted that the retention money is towards the

services rendered by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor

since as per the payment terms 5% of the amount to be retained and

the same shall be paid after completion of the work. Hence 5% of the

amount is part of the main payment and it cannot be treated as

separate money. It is also submitted that the entire construction work

was completed to the satisfaction of the Corporate Debtor on

21.03.2014 which is evident from the fact that the Corporate Debtor,

after being satisfied of the work done by the Operational Creditor

issued a virtual Completion Certificate on 04.04.2014 which states

that the defect liability period for the work would commence from

31.03.2014 till 01.04.2015. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no

existence of disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor. He further

submits that even in the reply to the Demand Notice, only a technical

point was raised and no dispute with regard to non-completion of work

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 6 of 20 was raised. Learned Counsel also relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and this Tribunal which will be dealt in this judgment.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the

records and documents filed in their support.

NOW we deal with the issues/grounds.

9. It is an admitted fact that the Corporate Debtor, i.e., Respondent

No. 1 issued Work Order dated 19.08.2011 to the Respondent No. 2

i.e., Operational Creditor and in the Payment Term of Clause -4, a

provision is made with regard to the Retention Money i.e., 5% from

every R.A. bill and it has been mentioned that the release of retention

money will be as per tender document.

10. We have perused the contract for the construction of Civil

Works. According to the parties, it is an admitted document. As per

Clause 6.28.1 certificate of completion need to be issued by the

Employer i.e., Corporate Debtor after completion of work or the

contract as the case may be. At clause 6.29.1 Defects Liability Period

has been mentioned. Clause 6.29.1 a) the Defect Liability Period shall

be 12 calendar months after completion of work as certified under

Clause 6.28. Any defects in material or workmanship observed, in the

entire work during the execution of work within Defect Liability Period,

the same shall be notified in writing by the Employer to the Contractor

and shall be rectified by him at his own cost within the time as

specified by the Employer. According to the learned Counsel for the

Respondent No. 2, the Defect Liability Period has been

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 7 of 20 notified/mentioned by the Corporate Debtor and which commences

from 31.03.2014 till 01.04.205 i.e., one-year period. The terms of

payment have been mentioned in Claue-8 of the Work-cum-Tender

Document. As per the said clause, release of retention money to the

Contractor will be after preparation of Final Bill and acceptance of the

same by the Contractor and after expiry of Defect Liability Period,

specified in the contract, reckoning from the date on which the

Employer shall have issued a Certificate of Completion comprising the

whole work. The retention money shall be released after all failures viz,

defect, imperfections, shrinkages are cured/rectified to the satisfaction

of the Employer.

11. Further, the Corporate Debtor i.e., Respondent No. 1 issued

Virtual Completion Certificate dated 04.04.2014 (at page 105 of the

Paper Book), which is reproduced herein:

"Hind Inns & Hotels

Regd. Office: 15, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh

Date: April, 4th, 2014

VIRTUAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. M/s CTC Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Sub: Issue of Virtual Completion certificate towards SITC of Civil Wroks of Our Hotel Project at Hind Inns & Hotels Ltd.

Dear Sir, This has in reference to our Work Order Dated-Aug, 19th, 2011 Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 8 of 20 The above said work is certified to be virtually completed as on March, 31st, 2014 subject to the rectification of defects if any, as pointed out by engineering/operations Department.

The defect Liability period for the subject work shall commence on March, 31st 2014 and will cover the entire period of One year up to April, 1st 2015. We will retain 5% of the final contract value as retention amount in your final bill and will release the same at the end of the defects liability period or on the submission of a Performance bank guarantee for the same which has to be valid for the defect liability period. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Hind Inns & Hotels Ltd.

Sd/-

Authorised Signatory."

As per the said Virtual Completion Certificate, the Corporate

Debtor accepted that the work completed as on 31.03.2104 subject to

the rectification of defects, if any, as pointed out by the Engineering/

Operation Department. Further it is mentioned that the Defect Liability

Period for the subject work was commenced from 31.03.2014 and

covered the entire period of one year i.e. upto 01.04.2015. It is also

stated that 5% of the final contract value will be retained as retention

amount in the Final Bill of the Operational Creditor and the same will

be released at the end of the Defect Liability period or on the

submission of Performance Bank Guarantee for the same which has to

be valid for the Defect Liability Period.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 9 of 20

12. According to Virtual Completion Certificate, Defect Liability

Period commenced from 31.03.2014 till 01.04.2015. The Operational

Creditor, after completion of the Defect Liability Period, addressed a

letter dated 10.04.2015 to the Corporate Debtor seeking release of

retention money and balance payment for civil works. Letter dated

10.4.2015 (page-107) specifically mentioned that the Defect Liability

Period of 12 months has expired successfully and hence requested the

Corporate Debtor to release retention money of Rs. 24,74,088/- and

also requested to release balance amount against final bill of Rs.

1,60,195/-.

13. The view of this Tribunal, the Defect Liability Period had been

completed on 01.04.2015 and the Operational Creditor had requested

vide their letter dated 10.04.2015 to release the retention money. Prior

to April, 2015, the Corporate Debtor had not raised any dispute with

regard to quality or incompletion of the work even after to their letter

dated 10.04.2015.

The Corporate Debtor, vide e-mail dated 13.07.2015 (at page 119

of Paper Book) addressed to the Operational Creditor regarding water

accumulation observed by them in -1 parking site. The said e-mail is

reproduced hereunder:

"Dear Mr. Gupta,

This is to update that Water accumulation is observed

in -1 marking first basement. Please get the slope

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 10 of 20 redone, so that water could flow towards the drain line

or towards-2 basement through ramp area.

Attached photo for your reference.

Ward regards,"

14. Vide E-mail dated 14.07.2015 (page-118), the Operational

creditor categorically replied to the above e-mail by specifically stating

as under:

...

"Dear Sir,

We would like to submit that we have completed and

handed over your property in September, 2013. We

have completed the above work as per the site

instructions/details of drawings issued from time to

time. Earlier we have attended on your problems and

rectified to your satisfaction. We have also completed

our Defect Liability Period successfully in March, 2015.

As on today, this is to be treated as maintenance issue

and shall be taken care by the owner itself."

..

15. In our view the e-mail of the Corporate Debtor dated 13.07.2015

was rightly replied by the Operational Creditor and stated that the

issue which was raised by the Corporate Debtor in their e-mail dated

13.07.2015(Page-119) is only a maintenance issue and shall be taken

care by the owner itself. Further the Corporate Debtor in their e-mail

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 11 of 20 dated 21.07.2015 (Page- 117) addressed to the Operational Creditor

which is reproduced as under:

....

"Dear Mr. Gupta,

As we spoke- We very much appreciate that you

have attended all our concerns and rectified the same

as and when required. Keeping the same into

consideration, kindly please ask someone from your

office to attend this issue as a Special Case request,

which shall be of great help.

Regards,"

...

FINDINGS:

16. From the reading of above e-mail of the Corporate Debtor

addressed to the Operation Creditor, this Tribunal is of the considered

opinion that the Corporate Debtor had accepted that all the works have

attended by the Operational Creditor and further requested the

Operational Creditor to attend to the work as a Special case request.

From the reading of the e-mail, we are of the view that the request

made by the Corporate Debtor is not part of the original work and it is

a Special Request made to the Operational Creditor to do the work.

17. We do not find any record or document to establish that there

exists any dispute nor raised any dispute by the Corporate Debtor,

hence, we conclude that there is no pre-existing of dispute. The

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 12 of 20 Operational Creditor had awarded the work and the retention money

cannot be treated as separate money. The retention money is a part of

main bill which was retained by the Corporate Debtor as per the terms

of the Work Order and the same shall be released after completion of

the work and issuance of the Completion Certificate. Further the

Defect Liability Period completed on 01.04.2015 and thereafter the

Operational Creditor had requested the Corporate Debtor to release

money. We are of the view that it is not barred by limitation. Learned

Adjudicating Authority rightly observed and held that the debt fell due

from 27.07.2015 when the mail was sent by Ginjar Hotel of the

Corporate Debtor stating that the Operational Creditor had attended

to all the concerns and rectified the same. The other submission of the

learned Counsel for the Appellant that debt does not fall within the

definition of Section 5(21) of IBC is concerned, the Operational Creditor

had rendered services and there is no dispute with regard to the said

services and we cannot accept that the said claims will not fall under

the definition of Operational Debt. For the Beneficial reference Section

5(21) of IBC is reproduced.

...

"5(21) "operational debt" means a claim in respect of

the provision of goods or services including

employment or a debt in respect of the payment of dues

arising under any law for the time being in force and

payable to the Central Government, any State

Government or any local authority;"

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 13 of 20

18. The stand of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the

Respondent No. 2 herein does not fall within the definition of

Operational Creditor as defined in Section 5(2) of IBC. For the

beneficial reference the said Section is reproduced herein:

...

"5(20) "operational creditor" means a person to whom

an operational debt is owed and includes any person

to whom such debt has been legally assigned or

transferred"

...

19. We are of the view that the Respondent No. 1 being a Corporate

Debtor is due and payable retention money which is part of the main

Bill thereby the Operational Creditor is well within the definition of

Section 5(20) IBC.

20. As per Section 8(1) IBC, an Operational Creditor may, on the

occurrence of a default deliver a Demand Notice of unpaid operational

debt copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in

the default to the Corporate Debtor in such form and manner as may

be prescribed.

21. Sub-Section 2(a) of Section 8 of the IBC, if there is existence of

dispute or record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceeding

filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice, the same shall bring

to the notice of the Operational Creditor within a period of 10 days

from the receipt of the Demand Notice.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 14 of 20

22. In the present case, the Demand Notice dated 01.03.2018 was

received by the Corporate Debtor on 09.03.2018. However, they fail to

bring to the notice of the Operational Creditor with regard to existence

of dispute in their reply or even shown existence of dispute prior to the

issuance of Demand Notice.

23. Therefore, we are of the view that the Respondent No. 1 had not

raised any dispute which is existing prior to the issuance of Demand

Notice. Further Section 3(2) of IBC define default. As per said Section,

the default means non-payment of debt when whole or any part or

instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is

not paid by the Debtor or Corporate Debtor as the case may be. The

debt has been defined in Section 3(11) means a liability or obligation

in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a

Financial Debt and Operational Debt. In view of the definition of debt

and default, the retention money, which is part of the main bill, comes

under the definition of debt and default.

24. Having dealt with the facts and legal position as discussed

above, now we deal with the precedents/judgments relied upon by the

learned Counsel for both the parties.

25. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the Judgement of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "B.K. Educational

Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta & Associates" [2018 SCC Online

1921] on the ground that the claim of the Respondent No. 2 herein was

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 15 of 20 barred by limitation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at

paragraph-48 that the Limitation Act is applicable to Applications filed

under Sections 7 & 9 of IBC from the inception of the Code. Article 137

of the Limitation Act gets attracted. The right to sue therefore accrues

when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years

prior to the date of filing of the Application, the Application would be

barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act over and except in those

cases where in the facts of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation may be

filed to condone the delay in filing such Application. Learned Counsel

for the Appellant relied upon above decision contending that the right

to accrue to the Respondent No. 2 occurred on 01.04.2015 and if the

limitation of three years is taken, the Application under Section 9 IBC

was to be filed on or before 01.04.2018. However, Respondent No. 2

filed Application under Section 9 on 27.04.2018 which is barred by

limitation. Further learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Jignesh

Shah and Another Vs. Union of India and Another' reported in

2019 SCC Online SC 1254 at paragraph-12, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court also held at paragraph 12 as under:

..

"12. ..... On the facts of this case, it is clear that the

winding petition was filed beyond three years in

August 2012, which is when, even according to

IL&FS, default in repayment had occurred, it is

barred by time."

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 16 of 20

..

26. The Hon'ble Supreme in the very same paragraph held:

".. with the introduction of Section 238 A into the

Code, the provision of Limitation Act applies to

Application made under the Code."

..

Further, the learned Counsel referred judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of "Vashdeo R. Bhojwani Vs.

Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Limited and Anr." reported in (2019)

9 SCC 158. The learned Counsel referred to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Limited - 2018 1 SCC Online SC 353" In

paragraph- 51 it is held:

"51. ..... Therefore, all that the adjudicating

authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a

plausible contention which requires further

investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently

feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact

unsupported by evidence."

27. Relying upon above judgment, learned Counsel submits that the

Adjudicating Authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a

plausible contention which requires further investigation and the

dispute is not a patently feeble legal argument or assertion of fact on

unsupported by evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above

decision clearly held that the Adjudicating Authority must reject the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 17 of 20 Application filed under Section 9(5(2)(d) of IBC after notice of dispute

has been received by the Operational Creditor or there is a record of

dispute in the Information Utility. In the present case, the Adjudicating

Authority held that the Corporate Debtor had not established that the

Corporate Debtor had raised any dispute prior to the issuance of

Demand Notice and therefore, it was concluded that there is no

dispute. However, with regard to the Judgment relied upon by the

learned Counsel for the Appellant on the point of limitation that the

Application filed by the Respondent No. 2 is barred by limitation is

concerned, this Tribunal is of the view that the Application filed by the

Respondent No. 2 is within limitation period, taking into consideration

that the e-mail dated 21.07.2015 addressed by the Corporate Debtor

to the Operational Creditor wherein it is clearly stated that, "As we

spoke- we very much appreciate that you have attended all our

concerns and rectified the same as and when required. Keeping the

same into consideration, kindly please ask someone from your office

to attend this issue as a Special case request, we shall be great help."

Further from the perusal of Form-5, Column-2 of Part-IV, the

Operational Creditor has stated that the right to recover the retention

money is accrued to the Operational Creditor on 01.04.2013. However,

the debt due from 27.07.2015 i.e., when Ginjar Hotel sent an e-mail to

the Operational Creditor. Therefore, we are of the view that the

Application filed by the Respondent No. 2 herein is not time barred.

Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the

Appellant will not be of any assistance.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 18 of 20

28. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also relied upon judgment

of this Tribunal in the matter of "Sudhir Sales & Services Ltd. Vs.

D-Art Furniture Systems Pvt Ltd." - Company Appeal

(AT)(Insolvency) No. 327 of 2018. In paragraphs 25 it is held-

"In "Innoventive Industries Ltd.(Supra)", the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that pre-existing dispute is the

dispute raised before demand notice or invoices was

received by the 'Corporate Debtor'. Any subsequent

dispute raised while replying to the demand notice under

Section 8(1) cannot be taken into consideration to hold

that there is a pre-existing dispute."

Further, at paragraph-26, this Hon'ble Tribunal held:

"In "Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd.(Supra)", the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that a dispute truly exists in fact and

is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory. Here there is no

such dispute was pre-existing apart from that a

hypothetical or illusory dispute which has been raised by

the 'Corporate Debtor' while replying to the demand

notice served under Section 8(1) by the 'Operational

Creditor'"

Learned Counsel for the Respondent also relied upon

Judgements of this Tribunal on the same point. Since we rely upon the

above Judgements and in view of settled legal position, we find those

are not necessary.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 19 of 20 CONCLUSION:

29. We have dealt with the issues and grounds raised by the

Appellant and held that the Respondent No. 2 falls under the category

of Operational Creditor and the 'debt' is an Operational Debt as per

law, which is due and payable. We have also dealt with the issues of

limitation and pre-existence of dispute, if any, and hold that there is

no pre-existence of dispute and Application is not barred by limitation.

Further, we hold that the retention money is a part of main bill which,

admittedly an Operational Debt. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we

do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned

Adjudicating Authority, in admitting the application under Section 9

of IBC.

30. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Appeal is devoid

of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is

dismissed. No orders as to cost.

[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical)

(V P Singh) Member(Technical) Akc

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1282 of 2019 Page 20 of 20