Crown Tobacco Company Pvt. Ltd vs Crale Foodlinks Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of order dated 21.09.2020 in C.P. (IB) 388/2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench]

IN THE MATTER OF: Crown Tobacco Company Pvt. Ltd. Everest, 56 Chapel Road, Bandra West, Mumbai 400050 .... Appellant. (Operational Creditor) Versus

1. Crale Foodlinks Pvt. Ltd. 301/3rd Floor, Safal Pride, Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Mumbai - 400088. ... Respondent No. 1. (Corporate Debtor)

2. Mrs. Leonys Pereira Age 64 Years, Occupation Business Residing at Damian House 2nd Floor, 10/A Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 Maharashtra. ... Respondent No. 2.

3. Mr. Craig Pereira Age 37 Years, Occupational Business Residing at Damian House 2nd Floor, 10/A Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 Maharashtra. ... Respondent No. 3. 2

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Darryl Pereia, Ms. Leandra Silveira, Ms. Sonja Curzai and Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Royston J. Pereira, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Mr. Kunal Cheema and Ms. Prabhleen Kaur, Advocates for R-2 & 3. Ms. Leonys Pereria.

JUDGMENT

(30th September, 2021)

Justice Anant Bijay Singh;

This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant (Operational Creditor)

being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench in

C.P. (IB) 388/2018 whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the

C.P. (IB) 388/2018 holding that the Company Petition is not maintainable

before this Tribunal and is liable to be dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant Appeal is as under:

i) That the Appellant (herein) - 'Crown Tobacco Company Pvt. Ltd.' is a

private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having

its registered address at Everest, 56 Chapel Road, Bandra West, Mumbai.

ii) The Appellant was in possession of a valid Restaurant, Bar, Bakery and

Eating House licenses from the ground and first floor premises of a bungalow

knows as Pioneer House, situated at 9, St. John Baptist Road, Bandra,

Mumbai, but the Appellant company was not in a position to exploit the full

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 3

potential of the licenses inter alia on account of being involved in other

businesses and also for want of modern skills required for running a

Restaurant and Lounge Bar.

iii) Further case is that the Respondent No. 1 (Corporate Debtor) - Crale

Foodlinks Pvt. Ltd. is also a private limited company, incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956, having its registered address at 301/3rd Floor, Safal

Pride, Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400088.

iv) The Respondent No. 1 had the requisite expertise and skill in the

hospitality industry and therefore, through its Directors, approached the

Appellant Company with a proposal to operate a Restaurant and Lounge Bar

from the Business Premises.

v) Further case is that the Respondent No. 1 entered into a Business

Conducting Agreement (for short BCA) with the Appellant Company on

29.04.2010 (at page 65 to 82 of the Appeal Paper Book) which was followed by

two Supplemental Agreements dated 30.04.2010 (at page 83 to 97 of the

Appeal Paper Book).

vi) The said Business Conducting Agreement was initially envisaged to be

operative for a period of 5 years. However, subsequently, it was extended for

another 2 years, expiring on 30.09.2017 vide Clause 2 of the Supplemental

Agreement -1 dated 30.04.2010. The said extension also entailed a revision of

the monthly Business Conducting Fee from the pre-existing 10% of the Gross

Revenue (as per Schedule B to the BCA dated 29.04.2010 r/w Clause 12

thereof) to 11% thereof.

vii) That as per Clause 3 of the Supplemental Agreement -1 provided for a

minimum monthly conducting fee, subject to yearly revisions, as provided

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 4

therein. As per the said clause, the minimum monthly conducting fee payable

by the Respondent to the Defendant from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2017 was Rs.

8,00,000/-. Clause 5 (j) of the BCA dated 29.04.2019, read with Clause 7 (a)

thereof provided that the Respondent was to reimburse the Appellant, within

7 days of a demand made by the Appellant via a proper invoice, electricity

charges, telephone charges or any other charges on account additional

electricity or gas supply for the business premises or alternatively pay the bill

itself with intimation to the Appellant.

viii) Further case is that the Clause 3 of the Supplemental Agreement -II

dated 30.04.2010 provided that any increase in Municipal taxes, levies, cesses

or other duties, subsequent to the commencement of the BCA were to be borne

by the Respondent, except in the case of Municipal Property taxes, the

increase in which was to be shared in equal proportions between the Appellant

and the Respondent.

ix) Further case is that as early as in 2016, the Appellant Company had

indicated that it did not wish to extend or renew the BCA beyond the

expiration dated 30.09.2017. The Respondent No. 2 - Mrs. Leonys Pereira and

Respondent No. 3 - Mr. Craig Pereira, however, had other plans. Thus, in July,

2017, shortly before the expiry of the BCA, they, along with Anslem Pereira,

filed R.A.D. Suit No. 348 of 2017 before the Court of Small Causes Bandra,

claiming tenancy rights in the business premises, despite being fully aware

that the Original Owners of the Business Premises had entered into a Leave

and License Agreement with the Appellant, and that the Appellant had in turn

entered into a Business Conducting Agreement with the Respondent.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 5

x) That on 05.09.2017, the Appellant raised Invoice No. CTC/17-18/06 on

the Respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 9,44,000/- (including GST) being

the Business Conducting Fee for the month of August, 2017.

xi) Further case is that on 30.09.2017, the BCA expired by efflux of time,

and since the Appellant was not interested in continuing with the business

arrangement any longer, the Respondent Company vacated the possession of

the business premises. However, the Monthly Conducting Fee and the utility

bills (electricity, water etc.) for the month of August and September remained

unpaid. Further, Municipal Assessment Taxes from June, 2010 to September,

2017 had also not been paid.

xii) That on 01.10.2017, the Appellant sent a letter to the Respondent No.

1 Company seeking clearance of aforesaid outstanding dues. Further, on

07.10.2017, the Appellant also raised Invoice No. CTC/17-18/07 on the

Respondent for an amount of Rs. 9,44,000/- (including GST) being the

Business Conducting Fee for the month of September, 2017.

xiii) Further case is that on 23.10.2017, meanwhile, in R.A.D. Suit No. 348

of 2017, filed by three individuals of the Pereira family in their personal

capacity, seeking tenancy rights in the Business Premises, the Court passed

an order confirmed that the Respondent was in fact running a business under

the BCA with the Appellant.

xiv) That on 08.11.2017 and 24.11.2017, the Appellant again wrote letters

to the Respondent No. 1 Company calling upon it to clear the outstanding

amount to the tune of Rs. 35,52,022/-. However, no response from the

Respondent No. 1.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 6

xv) That on 15.12.2017, in Commercial Suit No. 187 of 2018 filed by the

three individuals of the Pereira family, namely Mr. Craig Pereira, Mrs. Leonys

Pereira and Mr. Anslem Pereira under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

seeking possession of the Business Premises, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

granted Status Quo.

xvi) Further case is that finally, with no sight of any repayment from the

Respondent Company, the Appellant on 19.02.2018 sent a Demand Notice

under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC)

as prescribed under Form 3, calling upon the Respondent to clear the

outstanding amount of Rs. 35,52,022/-.

xvii) That on 01.03.2018 a purported Reply to the aforesaid Demand Notice

was received from the Respondent No. 2 and 3 denying the Respondent

Company's liability to pay any outstanding amount to the Appellant on

frivolous grounds, including the pre-existence of disputes, viz. R.A.D. Suit No.

348 of 2017 pending before the Court of Small Causes, Bandra and the

Commercial Suit No. 187 of 2018 pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High

Court. Thereafter, the Appellant filed Company Petition (IB) 388/2018 before

the NCLT, Mumbai under Section 9 of the IBC and the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai Bench vide order dated 21.09.2020 passed the following

order:

" The above company petition is filed on 12.03.2018. If we

examine the above claims, all the claims prior to 12.03.2015

are barred by limitation, since we are dismissing the above

Company Petition on the very nature of the claim and the locus

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 7

of the applicant, we are not dealing with each and every

contention raised by the respondents.

In view of the above observations, we are of the considered

opinion that the above Company Petitions not maintainable

before this Tribunal and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,

the above Company Petition is dismissed without costs and

pending IA's if any also stands disposed off.

However, this order does not preclude the petitioners from

instituting necessary recovery proceedings against the

Corporate Debtor for recovery of their dues in respect of the

claims that are within limitation."

Hence this Appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument,

also in memo of Appeal and his Written Submissions submitted that the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider the particulars of claim of 'Crown

Tabacco Company Pvt. Ltd' (at page 171 of the Appeal Paper Book). The

outstanding debt falls under the following four heads:

Sr. Particulars Amount Reference under the No. (INR) Business Conducting Agreement 1. Refund of Municipal 14,62,205.00 Page No. 94, Para No. 3 of Taxes the Appeal Memo.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 8

2. Conducting fees for last 2 Page No. 85 & 86 of the months August 2017 and 18,88,000.00 Appeal Memo. September 2017

3. Electricity Bill for the Page No. 68 of the Appeal month of September 2017 1,64,730.00 Memo.

4. Water Bill for the month of Page No. 68 of the Appeal August and September 37,087.00 Memo.

2017

Total 35,52,022.00

4. It is further submitted that the entire claim of Rs. 35,52,022/- is based

on the Business Conducting Agreement dated 29.04.2010 (at page 65 to 82 of

the Appeal Paper Book) which is signed by Directors of both the parties.

Thereafter, parties executed First Supplemental Agreement which is duly

singed by Directors of both the parties 9page 88 of the Appeal Paper Book).

The 2nd Supplement Agreement dated 30th April, 2010 was signed by Directors

of both the parties (at page 95 of the Appeal Paper Book).

5. It is further submitted that so far Municipal Taxes is concerned, referred

to page 94 of the Appeal Paper Book in Clause 3 deals with the Municipal

Taxes, charges, cesses, levies, fees, dues or other duties payable to the

Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai and same is holly applicable, but

this fact has not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority.

6. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority merely looked

at the period 2010, 2011, 2012,2013 and 2014 and concluded that these are

time barred debts and hence dismissed the petition of the Appellant.

7. It is further submitted that the claims on Municipal Bill cannot be

construed as time barred debt. Similarly, the Municipal Taxes for the period

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 9

2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 cannot be construed as

time barred debt as the bills itself are dated 16.11.2015 and the last to pay

these bills are 14.02.2016.

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further referred to page 206 of the

Appeal Paper Book which is Reply Affidavit of the Corporate Debtor filed before

the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, wherein paragraph 'g' reads as hereunder:

" g. There are several disagreements and serious differences

between the Directors of the Company and it is evident that

this Company is now not able to continue business activity

in its present from with the present management. I say that

the other two Directors namely Leonys Pereira and Craig

Pereira have no experience and never had any experience in

the business of running a restaurant or an eating house as

their family business in predominantly of furniture and

furnishings. I have been doing business of catering and

restaurant since 1997 under names of "China Bistro", "Star

Parade", "Oasis" etc. and catering business under the name

of "Food-Link"."

9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further referred to page 208 of the

Appeal Paper Book which is Reply Affidavit of the Corporate Debtor filed before

the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, wherein paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 read as hereunder:

" 4. I say that it is matter of record that the Corporate Debtor

paid conducting fees to the Operational Creditor as agreed

under the Business Conducting Agreement dated 29th April

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 10

2010 and the said fees were paid only until 31st July 2017.

The conducting fees and water bills for August and

September 2017 were not paid and the electricity bill for

September 2017 was not paid. Also, the property tax from

1.6.2010 to 30.09.2017 were not paid.

5. I say that the Corporate Debtor has paid its dues.

However, the outstanding debt for 2 months as claimed by

the Operational Creditor is not paid because the other two

directors i.e. Mrs. Leonys Pereira and Craig Pereira to further

their personal interest in the premises, are refusing to

sanction payment and without sanction the Company is not

authorized to release any payment. Accordingly, the said

payment remains outstanding.

6. I say that there are several issues of Oppression and mis-

management in the Corporate Debtor, in that the two

directors Leonys Pereira and Craig Pereira have no interest

in running this Company except to further their personal

interest in the premises."

10. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has failed to

consider the averments made in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid affidavit where

the Respondent No. 1 accepted the outstanding debt for 2 months as claimed

by the Operational Creditor is not paid because the other two Directors i.e.

Respondent No. 2 - Mrs. Leonys Pereira and Respondent No. 3 - Mr. Craig

Pereira to further their personal interest in the premises, are refusing to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 11

sanction payment and without sanction the Company is not authorized to

release any payment. So, based on these submissions the impugned order is

fit to be set aside.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1

11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 during the course of oral

argument and his Written Notes of Argument submitted that it is an admitted

position that a Business Conducting Agreement dated 29.04.2009 and the 2nd

Supplemental Agreements between the Appellant (Operational Creditor) and

the Respondent No. 1 (Corporate Debtor) in terms of which the Municipal

taxes, Conducting fees, Electricity Bills and Water Bills were being paid to the

Appellant and the same have been reflected in the Balance sheet of the

Respondent Company since the year 2009 onwards.

12. It is further submitted that the Business Conducting Agreement has

been signed by all the Directors, but the two Directors of the Respondent

Company i.e. Respondent No. 2 and 3 herein are not cooperated, the fund

could not be release as there is some differences between the Respondent Nos.

2 & 3 and the Appellant.

13. It is further submitted that the two Directors i.e. Respondent No. 2 and

3 have personal interest in grabbing the property by claiming tenancy rights

in their personal capacity to which Mr. Sanjay Vazirani, Director, Respondent

No. 1 Company has not subscribed. Further, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed

Company Petition No. 2355 of 2018 against Mr. Sanjay Manohar Vazirani,

Director of the Corporate Debtor for oppression and mismanagement under

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 12 Section 241 read with Section 242, 244 and other applicable provisions of the

Companies Act, 2013.

14. It is further submitted that the Mr. Sanjay Manohar Vazirani, Director

of the Corporate Debtor - Respondent No. 1 filed Company Petition No. 3783

of 2018 against two Directors i.e. Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3

herein for oppression and mismanagement under Section 242 read with

Section 242, 244 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.

Both the Petitions i.e. Company Petition No. 2355 of 2018 and Company

Petition No. 3783 of 2018 are pending.

15. It is further submitted that Mr. Sanjay Manohar Vazirani, Director, has

been left all the way alone to shift the Assets of the Corporate Debtor after the

expiry of the Business Conducting Agreement terms.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

16. From the perusal of the record it appears that I.A. No. 3026 of 2020 has

been filed for impleadment of applicants Mr. Leonys Pereira and Mr. Craig

Pereira as party Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. After hearing the parties, this

Appellant Tribunal allowed the I.A. No. 3026 of 2020 vide order dated

12.01.2021 and they were added party as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

17. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared and

filed their Reply Affidavit and also Written Submissions and during the course

of argument submits that Business Conducting Agreement / service entered

between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 where the Respondent Nos. 2

and 3 have been Directors. The alleged debt on account of Municipal Tax or

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 13

rent does not fall within the definition under Section 5(21) of the IBC. The

Section 5(21) of the IBC reads as under:

" 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;"

18. It is further submitted that the agreement dated 30.04.2010 under

which the Appellant is claiming that there is an agreement for operating a

business, the existence and binding nature of which is itself a subject matter

of pre-existing dispute in the suit bearing R.A.D. Suit No. 348 of 2017 pending

before the Small Causes Court Mumbai.

19. It is further submitted that unpaid rent / unpaid utility bill does not

constitute as an Operational Debt in view of pre-existing dispute between the

Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

20. It is further submitted that so far finding of the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Municipal Taxes are concerned, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has

rightly held that the Appellant cannot said to be an Operational Creditor, in

support of this submission judgment passed by this Tribunal in Company

Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 331 of 2019 dated 17.01.2010 relevant

portion read as hereunder:

" The following question arises for our consideration :

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 14

1. Whether a landlord by providing lease, will be treated as

providing services to the corporate debtor, and hence, an

operational creditor within the meaning of Section 5(20)

read with Section 5(21) of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016?

2. Whether the petition filed U/S 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code 2016 is not maintainable on account of

'pre-existing dispute'?

...........

Thus understanding for not increasing the rent of a

period of 6 years is a question of fact, which requires

further investigation. Thus in the present case, there was

a pre-existing dispute, which is proved by the issuance of

notice under Section 106 of the TP Act, much before the

issuance of demand notice, under Section 8 of the I&B

Code. Based on the above, the application filed under

Section 9 of the I&B Code could not have been admitted.

We are of the considered opinion that the alleged debt

on account of purported enhanced rent of leasehold

property does not fall within the definition of the

operational debt in terms of Section 5(21) of the Code. On

the above basis, it is clear that appeal deserves to be

allowed."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 15

21. It is further submitted that based on these submissions there is no merit

in the Appeal, the Appeal is fit to be dismissed.

FINDINGS

22. After hearing the parties and going through the pleadings as also

Written Submissions, we are of the considered view that the following facts

are admitted in the instant Appeal.

 The Appellant is an Operational Creditor who had valid Restaurant, Bar,

Bakery and Eating House licenses from the ground and first floor

premises of a bungalow knows as Pioneer House, situated at 9, St. John

Baptist Road, Bandra, Mumbai.

 The Appellant entered into a Business Conduction Agreement with the

Respondent No. 1 (Corporate Debtor) on 29.04.2010 (at page 65 to 82

of the Appeal Paper Book) which was followed by two Supplemental

Agreements dated 30.04.2010 (at page 83 to 97 of the Appeal Paper

Book).

 Business Conducting Agreement was initially envisaged to be operative

for a period of 5 years. However, subsequently, it was extended for

another 2 years, expiring on 30.09.2017 vide Clause 2 of the

Supplemental Agreement -1 dated 30.04.2010.

 It is also admitted fact that as per the terms of the Supplemental

Agreement, extension also entailed a revision of the monthly Business

Conducting Fee from the pre-existing 10% of the Gross Revenue (as per

Schedule B to the BCA dated 29.04.2010 r/w Clause 12 thereof) to 11%

thereof.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 16

 It is also admitted fact in 2016, the Appellant Company had indicated

that it did not wish to extend or renew the BCA beyond the expiration

dated 30.09.2017.

 It is also admitted fact that prior to expiry of BCA the Respondent Nos.

2 and 3 along with Anslem Pereira, filed R.A.D. Suit No. 348 of 2017

before the Court of Small Causes Bandra, claiming tenancy right in the

business premises.

 It is also admitted fact that on 05.09.2017, the Appellant raised Invoice

No. CTC/17-18/06 on the Respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs.

9,44,000/- (including GST) being the Business Conducting Fee for the

month of August, 2017.

 It is also admitted fact that on 30.09.2017, the BCA expired by efflux of

time, and since the Appellant was not interested in continuing with the

business arrangement any longer, the Respondent Company vacated

the possession of the business premises. The Monthly Conducting Fee

and the utility bills (electricity, water etc.) for the month of August and

September remained unpaid. Further, Municipal Assessment Taxes

from June, 2010 to September, 2017 had also not been paid.

 It is also admitted fact that on 08.11.2017 and 24.11.2017, the

Appellant again wrote letters to the Respondent No. 1 Company calling

upon it to clear the outstanding amount to the tune of Rs. 35,52,022/.

However, no response from the Respondent No. 1.

 It is also admitted fact that on 15.12.2017, in Commercial Suit No. 187

of 2018 filed by the three individuals of the Pereira family, namely Mr.

Craig Pereira, Mrs. Leonys Pereira and Mr. Anslem Pereira under

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 17 Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking possession of the

Business Premises, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court granted Status

Quo.

 It is also fact that the Appellant (Operational Creditor) claimed an

amount of Rs. 14,62,205/- towards Municipal Taxes covering the

following period against the total claim of Rs. 35,52,022/- which is

hereunder:

Property Tax Payable by Crale Foodlink Pvt. Ltd. From 2010 to 2017

Period Old Rate Revised 50% of increased taxes

01.06.2010 to 30.09.2010 5178 122297 58,560

01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 10357 245095 1,17,369

01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 20714 415170 1,97,228

01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 20714 361282 1,70,284

01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 20714 361282 1,70,284

01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 20714 361282 1,70,284

01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 20714 483272 2,31,279

01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 20714 483270 2,31,278

01.04.2017 to 30.09.2017 10357 241635 1,15,639

Total 14,62,205

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 18

 It is also admitted fact that the Respondent No. 1 is supporting the case

of the Appellant. It is also fact that the Appellant had not made party as

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before this Tribunal when the Appeal was filed.

Vide order dated 12.01.2021 passed by this Tribunal the Appellant

made party as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they opposed the

submissions of the Appellant.

 Thus, viewed from all angle, we are of the view that there is pre-existing

dispute between the parties and two cases also pending one is before

the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other is before the Court of Small

Causes Bandra.

 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority rightly come to the conclusion that total

amount of 14,62,205/- (Municipal Taxes) which is claimed by the

Appellant from period 2010 to 2017 and the Petition under Section 9 of

the IBC was filed on 12.03.2018, so all claims prior to 12.03.2015 are

time barred. We agree with this finding passed by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

ORDER

23. We agree with the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated

21.09.2020 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal), Mumbai Bench while dismissing the Company Petition under

Section 9 of the IBC filed by the Appellant in C.P. (IB)-388/2018 and is hereby

affirmed. There is no merit in the instant Appeal, the Appeal is hereby

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020 19

24. Registry to upload the Judgment on the website of this Appellate

Tribunal and send the copy of this Judgment to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench forthwith.

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

New Delhi 30th September, 2021 R. Nath.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 951 of 2020