Hacxad Infotech Private Limited vs Skootr Global Private Limited

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 (Arising out of Order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, Court-III in C.A. No.405/2019 in IB-195(ND)/2019)

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Hacxad Infotech Private Limited A-12, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase - 1, New Delhi - 110028. .... Appellant

Vs

M/s Skootr Global Private Limited Flat No.402, 4th Floor Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondent

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Adarsh Rai, Mr. Sidhant Saraswat, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr. Varun Sharma, Ms. Vanshika Gupta, Mr. Raunak Jain, Mr. Buddy Ranganadhan, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the Corporate Debtor through its Ex-

Management, challenging the order dated 30th November, 2021 passed by

the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court III rejecting

the Application filed by the Appellant to recall ex-parte order dated 8th

February, 2019 and admission order dated 10th April, 2019 passed by

Adjudicating Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 1

2. Brief facts of the case and sequence of events necessary to be noticed

in this Appeal are:

(i) The Corporate Debtor entered into Facility Management

Agreement dated 23rd May, 2018 with the Respondent

(Operational Creditor), under which the Respondent has

provided facility and workspace to run office operation by the

Corporate Debtor.

(ii) The Corporate Debtor opted out of the Facility Management

Agreement in September, 2018 and shifted his registered office

from C 6B/59, IInd Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi to A-12,

Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi with effect from

20th September, 2018. The Corporate Debtor vide email dated

19th September, 2018 informed the Operational Creditor about

the issues which arose regarding operation at the space

provided by the Operational Creditor.

(iii) The Operational Creditor claimed to have issued notice under

Section 8 to the Corporate Debtor on the registered email IDs

as available on the portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and

Demand Notice dated 3rd October, 2018 by Speed Post on the

registered address of the Corporate Debtor as well as on its

registered email IDs. The email did not bounce back or

returned, but no reply was filed to the notice dated 3rd October,

2018.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 2

(iv) An Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code')

has been filed by the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating

Authority issued notice of appearance vide order dated 25th

January, 2019, but the Corporate Debtor did not appear. An

affidavit of service was filed by the Operational Creditor before

the Adjudicating Authority dated 6th February, 2019 wherein

it was mentioned that notices issued by Registered Post as well

as Speed Post have not been delivered and returned with the

endorsement "Addressee left without instruction", whereas

email sent to the Corporate Debtor on email IDs as provided in

the Ministry of Corporate Affairs data base was sent. The

Adjudicating Authority after the receipt of the affidavit of

service held that notices are served and directed to proceed ex-

parte against the Corporate Debtor by its order dated 8th

February, 2019. The Application under Section 9 was taken

up for ex-parte hearing and by order dated 10th April, 2019 it

was admitted.

(v) After admission of Section 9 Application, the Director of the

Appellant received an email dated 03.05.2019 on its personal

email ID from one Shri Vimal Grover claiming to be Interim

Resolution Professional (IRP). The Appellant after coming to

know about the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor filed an

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 3 Application on 10th June, 2019 being CA No.405 of 2019 for

setting aside ex-parte order and impugned order dated 8th

February, 2019 and 10th April, 2019 on the ground of non-

service of notice and petition under the Code. The Application

filed by the Appellant for recall of the order, came to be opposed

by the Operational Creditor.

(vi) The Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 30th

November, 2021 rejected the Application. The Adjudicating

Authority took the view that order dated 8th February, 2019

and 10th April, 2019 have been passed after due consideration,

which cannot be recalled/ reviewed by the Tribunal. The

Tribunal followed the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the

matter of Khan Enterprises vs. National Company Law

Tribunal & Ors. to the effect that there is no provision in IBC

for review of order admitting a petition filed under Section 9.

Aggrieved by the order dated 30th November, 2021, this Appeal

has been filed.

3. We have heard Shri Gaurav Mitra, learned Counsel for the Appellant

and Shri Varun Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating

Authority has committed error in observing that it has no jurisdiction to

recall/ review order dated 8th February, 2019 and 10th April, 2019. It is

submitted that Rule 49 of NCLT Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the

"NCLT Rules") specifically empowers the Adjudicating Authority to recall an

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 4 ex-parte order under Rule 49, sub-rule (2). The Adjudicating Authority was

well within its jurisdiction to recall the order on the ground that both orders

were passed ex-parte. It is submitted that in the order dated 8th February,

2019 itself it was recorded that notices sent to Corporate Debtor vide Speed

Post were received back unserved, with the report that addressees have left

the premises. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the

Corporate Debtor has already informed the Operational Creditor vide email

dated 19th September, 2018 that he has to shift his premises and in

pursuance of Board Resolution passed by Board of Directors of the

Corporate Debtor on 20th September, 2019, the Corporate Debtor has

shifted his office to Naraina Industrial Area, which fact is fully proved by

the notices sent at the registered office having been returned with the

endorsement that addressee has shifted the premises. It is further

submitted that the domain services, which was being provided by the

service provider had informed the Corporate Debtor on 27th July, 2018 that

official domain and email services are going to expire and by the end of

September 2018, email services provided by the third-party service provider

expired hence, no email could be received by the Appellant at email domain

service. The learned Counsel was well aware of the personal email IDs of

the Directors and notices were deliberately sent to the domain email IDs,

which were not in use by the Corporate Debtor.

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that as soon

as the order dated 10th April, 2019 was passed, the Director of the Appellant

received an email on his person email ID on 3rd May, 2019 from one Shri

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 5 Vimal Grover claiming to be IRP. Several emails after the aforesaid date

have also been sent by Operational Creditor on the personal email IDs of

the Directors. It is further submitted that the service provider, who was

providing domain service informed regarding expiry of the domain service,

which having not been renewed in September, 2019, the emails claiming to

be sent by Operational Creditor on the registered email IDs were not

received by the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority itself having

noted that Registered Post notice sent by Registered Post returned back

with the endorsement that Corporate Debtor left the premises, hence

service was not complete and Corporate Debtor having made sufficient

ground in the Application No.405 of 2019, the ex-parte orders dated 8th

February, 2019 and 10th April, 2019 deserve to be recalled. The

Adjudicating Authority committed error in not considering the reasons and

grounds given for ex-parte order on misconceived notion that Appellant is

asking review of its order.

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of

the Appellant contends that notices issued under Section 8 demand notice

and notice for Application under Section 9 were all sent on the registered

address as well as registered email IDs of the Corporate Debtor as available

on the portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The emails did not bounce

back, which clearly proves that Demand Notice as well as notices sent

under Section 9 were received by the Corporate Debtor, but no reply was

filed by the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit

any error in rejecting the Application. The Adjudicating Authority is not

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 6 vested with power to review/ recall/ set-aside its own ex-parte order after

the constitution of Committee of Creditors ("CoC"). The learned Counsel

for the Respondent also relied on the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal

in Suspended Management of Jay Polypack Pvt. Ltd. vs. SGV Foils Pvt.

Ltd. & Anr. - [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.362 of 2021. The learned

Counsel further submits that notices sent by emails are in accordance with

the rules of service and Corporate Debtor cannot complain that notices

were not served on him. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further

submits that even after initiation of CIRP by an order dated 10th April, 2019,

the Directors of the Corporate Debtor have withdrawn an amount of Rs.56

lakhs from the account of the Corporate Debtor on 4th February, 2021,

which was against the provisions of the Code.

7. We have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties

and have perused the record.

8. In IA No.405 of 2019, the prayer of the Corporate Debtor was to recall

order dated 8th February, 2019 by which the Appellant was set ex-parte

and further to set aside the order dated 10th April, 2019 qua the Corporate

Debtor. The Application was filed by the Appellant on the ground that

notices issued in Section 9 Application were not served on the Corporate

Debtor nor Demand Notice under Section 8 was served on the Corporate

Debtor and order dated 8th February, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority to proceed ex-parte was an order without service of notice on the

Corporate Debtor and hence deserves to be recalled. We may first notice

the certain averments, which was made in the Application being IA No.405

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 7 of 2019 by the Appellant. In paragraphs 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are the

pleadings of the Corporate Debtor in his Application to recall the ex-parte

order, which are to the following effect:

"9. That along with the above, the Corporate Debtor had also taken a management decision to shift its registered office from Janakpuri to Naraina, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors. Copy of the Board Resolution dated September 20, 2018 along with copy of Form INC-22 attesting to change of registered office by the Corporate Debtor is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - 2.

It is stated that the determination to change the registered office was passed in September 2018, around the same time as the outsourcing work was being shifted out from the premises of the Operational Creditor.

13. That thereafter, from September onwards, till May 2019 there was no word whatsoever from the Operational Creditor, and the Corporate Debtor was getting its BOP services managed from another third-party entity at immense cost to itself, and its foreign partners.

14. That however, sometime in May 2019, an email dated 03.05.2019 was received from one Mr. Vimal Grover, who identified himself as Chartered Accountant, and furthermore, as the Interim Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor, which email was received for the first time, to the utter surprise of one of the Directors of the Corporate Debtor. It is stated that it was only pursuant to this email, that the Director of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 8 Corporate Debtor was made aware that there was some alleged proceedings which had been commenced and concocted at the behest of the Operational Creditor, and without notice to the Corporate Debtor, which is fundamental requirement under the mandate of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Copy of the email dated 03.05.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - 3.

16. It is stated that neither the demand notice, nor any copy of the subsequent petition was ever served upon the Corporate Debtor, which is highly suspicious, since even if there was no address matching in the Speed Post, due notice was served to the Operational Creditor that the Corporate Debtor would be shifting its office, and all the representatives within the management of Operational Creditor had several email addresses of all the relevant officers of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, by not sending the copy of the Section 8 Demand Notice by email and choosing to issue the email to one email address, which found mention in the MCA records, clearly points out to the duplicitous conduct of the Operational Creditor.

17. It is stated that the present CIR process was deliberately rendered ex-parte by the Operational Creditor, since it wanted to hide its malafide conduct and did not want the Corporate Debtor to become aware of the fact that such a proceedings was contemplated to be underway."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 9

9. Rule 49, sub-rule (2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 specifically deals with

proceedings, which have been ex-parte heard and disposed of. Rule 49 is

as follows:

"49. Ex-parte Hearing and disposal.- (1) Where on the date fixed for hearing the petition or application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant appears and the respondent does not appear when the petition or the application is called for hearing, the Tribunal may adjourn the hearing or hear and decide the petition or the application ex-parte. (2) Where a petition or an application has been heard ex-

parte against a respondent or respondents, such respondent or respondents may apply to the Tribunal for an order to set it aside and if such respondent or respondents satisfies the Tribunal that the notice was not duly served, or that he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing (when the petition or the application was called) for hearing, the Tribunal may make an order setting aside the ex-parte hearing as against him or them upon such terms as it thinks fit. Provided that where the ex-parte hearing of the petition or application is of such nature that it cannot be set aside as against one respondent only, it may be set aside as against all or any of the other respondents also."

10. We may further notice that in order dated 8th February, 2019 by

which Adjudicating Authority decided to proceed ex-parte against the

Appellant, itself noted that notices sent by Speed Post have been received

back unserved. On 8th February, 2019, following order was passed by the

Adjudicating Authority:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 10 "As per the Affidavit filed by the petitioner, steps for service were taken vide e-Mail at the e-Mail of the Corporate Debtor registered with the MCA, which has not bounced. Steps were also taken to serve the Corporate Debtor through its Directors vide 'Speed Post' but these have been received back unserved, with the report that the addressees have left the premises. As the Corporate Debtor has been served vide e-Mail, and none is present on their behalf, they are proceeded ex-parte.

To come up for final arguments on 01.03.2019."

11. The order dated 8th February, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority on the basis of affidavit of service filed by the Operational

Creditor dated 6th February, 2019. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it has

been pleaded that Operational Creditor has tried to serve the copy of the

order (Order dated 25th January, 2019 by which notices were issued to the

Corporate Debtor), which letter was not delivered. The registered letter sent

by Speed Post service were also not delivered and returned with the

endorsement "addressee left without instruction". Thus, the notices, which

were sent by the Adjudicating Authority to the Corporate Debtor, both by

Registered Post and Speed Post were not served, which fact is also noticed

in the order dated 8th February, 2019. In the Application No.405 of 2019,

the Appellant has come up with a case that registered email IDs of the

Corporate Debtor and its Directors through the domain service was no

more in operation after September 2019 as the domain service provided by

the third-party had expired. It is also the case of the Corporate Debtor

that immediately after passing of the order dated 10th April, 2019, an email

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 11 was received on the personal email ID of the Director dated 3rd May, 2019,

which was duly received. The Operational Creditor was well aware of the

personal email IDs of the Directors and notices were not sent on the

personal email IDs of the Directors. The Corporate Debtor has made

sufficient ground to prove that order dated 8th February, 2019 as well as

order dated 10th April, 2019 were passed without serving any notice. In

the order which was passed on 10th April, 2019, admitting Section 9

Application, the Adjudicating Authority itself has noticed in paragraph 11

that notices sent by Speed Post have been received back unserved.

Paragraph 11 of the order is as follows:

"11. It is seen from the order dated 08.02.2019 of this tribunal that as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner, steps for service were taken vide e-mail at the e-mail id of the Corporate Debtor registered with the MCA, which has not bounced. This is an adequate service. Steps were also taken to serve the Corporate Debtor through its Directors vide 'Speed Post' but these have been received back unserved. However none appeared on the behalf of Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor was proceeded ex-parte."

12. The present is a case where Corporate Debtor was asking for recall

of the order dated 8th February, 2019 and 10th April, 2019. Both the orders

were passed ex-parte and no notices were served. The Adjudicating

Authority committed error in holding that the Appellant was asking for

review of the admission order. In the impugned judgment dated 30th

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 12 November, 2021, learned Adjudicating Authority have relied on a judgment

of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Khan Enterprises vs. National

Company Law Tribunal & Ors. for forming an opinion that Rule 11 of

NCLT Rules cannot be used seeking recall/ review of the orders. We have

noticed above that what Corporate Debtor was seeking, was to recall the

ex-parte order, which power was specifically conferred on the Adjudicating

Authority under Rule 49, sub-rule (2). When power is specifically conferred

under the Rule, there was no question of exercising any review jurisdiction

in the facts of the present case. The Adjudicating Authority was fully

competent to recall ex-parte order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule

49, sub-rule (2). In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the judgment of

Khan Enterprises vs. National Company Law Tribunal & Ors. has been

referred to. We may notice the observations made by Adjudicating

Authority in paragraph 8, which is to the following effect:

"8. Further, we are in agreement with submissions made by Counsel for the Operational Creditor that the powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules cannot be used seeking recall/ review of the orders, for which alternate effective remedy is provided under the IBC, 2016. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Khan Enterprises Vs. National Company Law Tribunal and Ors in C.M.W.P. No.32675 of 2018 has inter alia, held that "it is admitted that there is no provision in I.B.C. for review of the order admitting a petition filed under Section 9 of the I.B.C. It is also not disputed in law that the power to review cannot be exercised unless there is specific provision for the same."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 13 Similar views have been propounded in various other case laws by the Hon'ble NCLAT and relied upon by the Operational Creditor."

13. The Adjudicating Authority by noticing the observation of the

Allahabad High Court has noted only one part of the observation, whereas

omitting the next part of the order in the same paragraph. In Allahabad

High Court in the matter of Khan Enterprises Vs. National Company Law

Tribunal and Ors in C.M.W.P. No.32675 of 2018, the Hon'ble Court has

made following observation:

"It is admitted that there is no provision in IBC for review of the order admitting a petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC. It is also not disputed in law that the power to review cannot be exercised unless there is specific provision for the same.

As far as power to recall an order is concerned, it is nothing but a procedural review which can be availed only if there is any procedural defect in passing the order or the order has been obtained by playing fraud in any manner."

14. In the second part of the observation, it was clearly mentioned that

the procedural review can very well be availed, if there is any procedural

defect in passing the order. The present was a case where there was

procedural defect, since service was not effected on the Corporate Debtor.

Thus, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which has been relied by

the Adjudicating Authority for non-suiting the Corporate Debtor also does

not support the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 14 foregoing, we arrive at a conclusion that orders dated 8th February, 2019

as well as 10th April, 2019 were passed without service of any notice on the

Corporate Debtor and both the orders being ex-parte, deserve to be set

aside by the Adjudicating Authority by exercising the power under Rule 49,

sub-rule (2).

15. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on judgment of

this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.362 of 2021 in

Suspended Management of Jay Polypack Pvt. Ltd. vs. SGV Foils Pvt.

Ltd. & Anr. The learned Counsel for the Respondent placed reliance on

paragraph 20 and 21 of the above judgment to the following effect:

"20. With the aforesaid preposition of law, it is settled that once the Application under Section 7 or 9 is admitted and CIRP initiated, such proceeding is in rem. Being a proceeding in rem, it is necessary that the body which is to oversee the resolution process must be consulted before any individual corporate debtor is allowed to settle its claim. Before a CoC is constituted, a party can approach the Adjudicating Authority directly and the Adjudicating Authority may in exercise of its powers under Section 12A of the IBC r/w Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 allow or disallow an application for withdrawal or settlement. Similarly, before constitution of CoC if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the notice was not duly served on the Corporate Debtor the Adjudicating Authority may make an order for setting

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 15 aside the ex-parte order for initiating CIRP upon such terms as it thinks fit. However, after constitution of CoC the Adjudicating Authority cannot set aside even ex-parte admission order and in such a situation the Corporate Debtor has to file the Appeal under Section 61 of the IBC.

21. Now, we have considered the facts of this case, the Application under Section 9 was admitted on 27.05.2020 and the Appellant (Corporate Debtor) has filed the Application for setting aside the ex-parte admission order on 06.11.2020 whereas the CoC has been constituted thereafter on 20.11.2020. In such a situation before constitution of CoC the Ld. Adjudicating Authority can consider the Application for setting aside ex-parte admission order but after constitution of the CoC the Ld. Adjudicating Authority cannot in exercise of power under Rule 49(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 set aside the ex-parte admission order. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order after constitution of CoC i.e. on 23.03.2021, therefore, we find no illegality in the impugned order."

16. The aforesaid observations were made by this Tribunal while

considering the powers under Section 12A of the Code r/w Regulation 30A

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution

Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to

as 'CIRP Regulations 2016) where this Tribunal held that before

constitution of CoC, if Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that notice was

not duly served on the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority can

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 16 make an order for setting aside ex-parte order. The learned Counsel for

the Respondent has placed reliance on the observation of this Tribunal in

paragraph 20 that after constitution of CoC, the Adjudicating Authority

cannot set-aside even ex-parte order and in such situation the Corporate

Debtor has to file an Appeal under Section 61 of the Code. We are of the

view that observations of this Tribunal in the above case have to be

confined to consideration pertaining to Section 12A of the Code and 30A of

the CIRP Regulations 2016. This Tribunal was not called to consider the

case for recall of ex-parte order, which was passed without service of notice

on the Corporate Debtor. In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority

has not rejected the Application of the Corporate Debtor on the ground that

it has been passed after constitution of CoC. In the facts of the present

case, the Appellant has clearly pleaded that although admission order

under Section 9 was passed on 10th April, 2019, but CoC was constituted

only in March 2021 that is much after filing of CA 405 of 2019. In

paragraph 7.37 of the Appeal, following has been pleaded:

"7.37 It is pertinent to note that there was no

substantial progress in the CIRP and the CoC was

constituted only in March 2021 much after the filing

of CA 405 of 2019 and after the filing of the urgent

Application in it on 22.02.2021. It is also stated

that the matter was Respondent is the only member

in the CoC constituted by the RP."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 17

17. Thus, the present is a case where Application to recall of order was

filed much before the constitution of CoC. Hence, the aforesaid judgment

relied by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is not attracted in the

facts of the present case and is clearly distinguishable.

18. There is one more aspect, which needs to be noticed. The learned

Counsel for the Respondent submits that after the order dated 10th April,

2019, the Directors of the Appellant transferred to their account Rs.56

lakhs from the Corporate Debtor's account claiming to be payments made

by them on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. On a pointed query on this

submission, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellants are

ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs.56 lakhs. The learned

Counsel for the Appellant, however, submits that he should be permitted

to deposit the amount before the Adjudicating Authority and not in the

account of Corporate Debtor. The amount having withdrawn by the

Directors to their accounts, from the account of the Corporate Debtor, we

are of the view that Directors may deposit back the said amount into the

account of the Corporate Debtor. Let the aforesaid deposit be made within

30 days from today by the Appellants.

19. In view of the foregoing discussions, we set-aside the order dated 30th

November, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in C.A. No.405/2019

in IB-195(ND)/2019. The Appeal is allowed and the order dated 8th

February, 2019 as well as 10th April, 2019 are also set-aside. Application

IB-195(ND)/2019 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority, to be heard

and decided after hearing the parties. The Appellants are also allowed 30

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 18 days' time to file reply to Section 9 Application before the Adjudicating

Authority. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties may decide

the IB-195(ND)/2019 on merits and in accordance with law. The Appeal is

allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

10th March, 2022

Ash/NN

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1064 of 2021 19