Howrah Mills Company Limited vs Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction ...

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 339 of 2021

[Arising out of order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in RST. A. No. 842/KB/2020 in CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF: Howrah Mills Company Limited A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies, Act, 1956, having its registered office at Howrah House, 135, Foreshore Road, Howrah-711102, West Bengal.

...... Appellant (Corporate Debtor) Versus

1. J.M. Finance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and incorporated as an Asset Reconstruction Company pursuant to Section 3 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) having its registered address at 7th Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai 400025, 2

Maharashtra and amongst others also branch office at 8th floor, Kankaria Estate, 6, Little Russel Street, Kolkata-700071, West Bengal acting in its capacity as a trustee of the JMFARC-Federal Bank March 2016 Trust for the benefit of the holder of the security receipts issued by the trustee.

....... Respondent No. 1. (Financial Creditor) 2. Abhinandan Holdings Private Limited. ....... Respondent No. 2.

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sadapurna Mukherjee, Advocate.

For Respondent:- Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Utsav Mukherjee, Mr. Jaiveer Kant, Mr. Hardik Khatri, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. K. Singh, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(11th January, 2023)

Justice Anant Bijay Singh;

The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 61 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC) being aggrieved and

dissatisfied by the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata) in RST. A. No.

842/KB/2020 in CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019, whereby and whereunder the

application i.e. RST. A. No. 842/KB/2020 for restoration of main petition i.e. CP

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 3

(IB) No. 04/KB/2019 was allowed and further directed that the CP (IB) No.

04/KB/2019 be listed for hearing on 16.03.2021.

2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows:

i) The Respondent as the Financial Creditor in the month of 2019 filed

application being CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019 under Section 7 of the IBC. During

the pendency of the Section 7 application the Respondent had filed an

application before the Adjudicating Authority being CA (IB) No. 123/KB/2020

seeking to withdraw the Section 7 application which was filed against the

Appellant / Corporate Debtor with liberty to pursue the matter against the

corporate debtor in the event of default in execution of the Deed of Assignment

between the Respondent and one Abhinandan Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (intending

assignee).

ii) By an order dated 23rd January, 2020, the Adjudicating Authority allowed

CA (IB) No. 123/KB/2020 filed by the Respondent by passing the following

order:-

"Ld. Sr. Counsel for the financial creditor appears. Ld.

Counsel for the corporate debtor appears. Both of them

submitted that matter is settled. For this purpose, CA(IB)

123/KB/2020 is filed for recording settlement. In view of

this, this proceeding stands disposed off with liberty to

the financial creditor to get the matter revived, if the

settlement fails. CP alongwith all the CAs stand disposed

off."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 4

iii) Further case is that the Appellant received a copy of an application being

RST. A. No. 842/KB/2020 filed by the Respondent before the Adjudicating

Authority seeking revival of the section 7 application which was filed against the

Appellant to be heard on merits in view of the settlement having been failed

according to the Respondent. Thereafter, the Appellant has filed its reply to the

restoration application recording its objection to the maintainability of

application and also to the revival of the main section 7 application. After hearing

the Appellant and Respondent being the financial creditor and the corporate

debtor, the Adjudicating Authority allowed the Application i.e. RST. A. No.

842/KB/2020 for restoration of main petition i.e. CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019 and

further directed that the CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019 be listed for hearing on

16.03.2021. Hence this Appeal.

3. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and

in his memo of Appeal along with written submissions submitted that the

impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority without joining all

necessary and proper parties without disclosing the true and correct facts and

is vitiated by fraud. Further, the fact that there was an agreement to assign the

debt of Howrah Jute Mill Limited between Abhinandan Holding (NBFC) and JM

Finance (ARC) dated 15.01.2020 makes Abhinandan Holding a necessary party

but despite the same it has not been made a party by JM Finance before the

Adjudicating Authority when the main prayer is against Abhinandan Holding

(AHPL). The Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the third-party

rights will be affected and it is not possible to hold default against the said

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 5

intending assignee/AHPL/third party without making the said assignee/AHPL

to be a party to the restoration application and to be heard before the passing

any final order holding against the said assignee/AHPL by holding that there is

default committed by the said assignee/AHPL. The impugned order is contrary

to the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside at the very

threshold.

4. It is further submitted that the Respondent has fraudulently suppressed

material facts in an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice and unless the

proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and immediately stayed it will

amount to abuse of the process of law since the party against whom the order is

passed was not made a party to the impugned proceedings and accordingly could

not place material documents on record imperative for adjudication of the revival

application. The Apex Court has repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a

person who does not disclose all material facts and has not made necessary

parties a part of the proceedings has no right to be heard on merits of his

grievance:

• Union of India and others Vs. Maneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92,

• Sunil Poddar and Others Vs. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326

and

• G. Jayshree and Others Vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009)

3 SCC 141.

5. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the

impugned order on the basis of a prima facie satisfaction that there is default on

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 6

the part of the assignee based on the rejection letter dated 2nd March, 2020, not

taking into account the fact that the same letter is under challenge in a Civil Suit

being T.S. No. 22 of 2021 which was filed by AHPL against the Respondent and

the Appellant before the learned Howrah Commercial Court. Therefore, the

embargo under Section 238 of the Code 2016 could not have been be made

applicable. On 29.09.2021, Civil Court passed an order of injunction restraining

the defendants in the suit which included the Respondent from giving any effect

to the document/revocation letter dated 2nd March, 2020. The stay was

continued vide order dated 03.12.2021. The application for revival was thus non-

est and could not have been entertained. This Tribunal ought to take into

account the order of injunction passed by the Learned Howrah Court dated

29.09.2021 as the resultant effect of the same is that the revocation letter is non-

est in law and the restoration of the insolvency proceedings is unwarranted.

Moreover, a memorandum of settlement was entered between the parties.

6. It is further submitted that Clause 7.4.5 of the Agreement dated 15th

January, 2020 the Respondent had agreed to keep in abeyance all the legal

proceedings and actions AHPL upon receipt of 25% of the consideration

mentioned in clause 1(d) of the said agreement. Under the said agreement to

assign which was entered into between AHPL and Respondent herein, AHPL had

undertaken to take over the financial assets of the Appellant from the

Respondent. The particulars of the financial assets have been mentioned in

Schedule-I of the said agreement which includes creation of charge over fixed

assets of the Appellant and all the piece and parcel of land containing by

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 7

estimation an area of 95 Bighas, 1 Kottah, 1 Chittack, 20 Square Feet (more or

less), situated in Mouja, Bage Shibpur and partly, Mouja, Ramkrishnapur, PO

and PS Shibpur, forming municipal holding number 493/C/A and 493/C/B G.T.

Road, Howrah. In addition to the above, inter alia, charge over the plant and

machinery and fixed assets of the Respondent lying at the property has to be

assigned in favour of the Respondent by AHPL in terms of the said agreement to

assign dated 15th January, 2020 which was suppressed by the Respondent

before the Adjudicating Authority. The sum and substance of the said agreement

which would be evident from a meaningful reading of all the terms is that AHPL

and its management is to take over the Appellant Company once 25% (or more)

payment in terms of the said agreement is made. It was thus the duty and

obligation of the Respondent, to act in terms of the negative covenant in the said

agreement and not initiate any legal proceedings against the Appellants, which

for the sake of convenience, is set out hereinbelow:

"7.4.5 Upon receipt of initial 25% of the consideration,

JMFARC shall keep in abeyance all legal actions and legal

proceedings initiated by JMFARC against Howrah Mills and its

guarantors."

7. It is further submitted that according to the Respondent the third-party

assignee defaulted in making payment under the aforesaid Agreement after

having paid the first instalment of Rs. 6.50 crores being 25% of the amount

agreed between the Respondent and AHPL. In the Agreement to Assign dated

15th January, 2020, there is no mention or provision of the purported liberty on

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 8

the part of the Respondent to continue legal proceedings against the Appellant,

however, despite the same the Respondent filed the revival application and

obtained the impugned order by suppressing the foregoing crucial material facts

which unequivocally establishes that there is not admitted crystallized debt and

the application was pre-mature and liable to be set aside at the very threshold

in terms of the finding of this Hon'ble Court in 'Mahendra Trading Vs.

Hindustan Controls and Equipment Pvt. in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 97 of 2018' wherein it was held that existence of an admitted

debt is sine qua on for initiation of CIRP. In fact, the order of admission of CIRP

in respect of a financially going concern which provides livelihood to over 3000

workers and innumerable farmers in the markets is contrary to the true intent

of the IBC.

8. It is further submitted that after paying 7.5 crores by AHPL to Respondent

and agreeing to a rescheduled payment schedule the Respondent has waived its

right to the purported termination dated 02.03.2020. This was incorporated into

IBC by way of Section 10A and the amendment was brought into effect on

23.03.2020. In AHPL's case, the default, if any, happened after 25th March, 2020.

Inasmuch as the Respondent had waived the earlier default and the time for

repayment under the said agreement was extended as would be evident from the

Respondents letters dated 12th March, 2020, 29th June, 2020 and 08th July,

2020. Further, this Tribunal should consider directing the Respondent to settle

the alleged debt invoking the pre-pack scheme in light of the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Swiss Ribbons Vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 9

OnLine SC 7' wherein it held that the intent of the IBC to resolve and revive a

corporate debtor and thereby significantly reinforces the efforts of the creditors

and other stakeholders to achieve such end. The Assignee Abhinandan Holdings

is willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 18.51 crores to the Respondent No.

1 within 60 days as per its letter dated 12.10.2022. Further submitted that above

submissions, the impugned order cannot be sustained, it is fit to be set aside

and the Appeal be allowed.

9. From the perusal of the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by this Bench in

I.A. No. 2752 of 2021 wherein this Bench after taking note of the fact submitted

by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Assignee 'Abhinandan Holdings Private

Limited' moved before the Commercial Court and obtained injunction order in

the Court of Neyaz Alam, Judge, Commercial Court at Rajarhat, North 24

Parganas vide order dated 29.09.2021 in [T.S.-22/21 (CC) (CNR No. WBNP19-

000000-2021) J.O: WB01398], therefore, proceeding before the Adjudicating

Authority in RST. A. No. 842/KB/2020 in CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019 was stayed.

Further, 'Abhinandan Holdings Private Limited' appeared and filed his reply

affidavit.

10. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 - 'Abhinandan Holdings Private

Limited' during the course of argument and in his reply affidavit along with

written submissions submitted that impugned order is a nullity part from being

perverse and should be set aside. In view of the order of injunction passed by a

civil court on October 20, 2020 when there was no proceeding pending under

the IBC, the financial creditor/Respondent No. 1 herein could not have relied

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 10

upon the revocation letter dated 2nd March, 2020 as part of its restoration

application which was filed before the Adjudicating Authority. The order dated

20th October, 2020 is subsisting, the financial creditor remains injuncted to rely

upon the purported revocation letter. The financial creditor was restrained from

placing reliance upon the revocation letter dated 02nd March, 2020 and therefore,

the order impugned passed by the Adjudicating Authority placing reliance upon

the revocation letter dated 02nd March 2020 is an act of perversity. The financial

creditor in course of hearing of the restoration application before the

Adjudicating Authority did not bring to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority

the relevant communications which were exchanged between the assignor and

the assignee post the revocation letter which includes the communications dated

12th March, 2020, 29th June 2020, 06th July 2020 and 08th July 2020 and hence

an incorrect impression was given before the Adjudicating Authority by the

financial creditor as if to suggest that there has been a purported default on the

part of the AHPL/assignee. AHPL ought to have been added as party Respondent

in the restoration application and the impugned order could only and be heard

thereafter.

11. It is further submitted that the fact that there was an agreement to assign

the debt of Howrah Jute Mill Limited between Abhinandan Holding (NBFC) and

JM Finance (ARC) dated 15.01.2020 makes Abhinandan Holding a necessary

party but despite the same it has not been made a party by JM Finance before

the Adjudicating Authority when the main prayer is against Abhinandan Holding

(AHPL). The Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the third-party

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 11

rights will be affected and it is not possible to hold default against the said

intending assignee/AHPL/third party without making the said assignee/AHPL

to be a party to the restoration application and to be heard before passing any

final order holding against the said assignee/AHPL by holding that there is

default committed by the said assignee/AHPL. The Respondent has fraudulently

suppressed material facts in an attempt to pollute the pure steam of justice and

unless the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and immediately

stayed it will amount to abuse of the process of law since the party against whom

the order is passed was not made a party to the impugned proceedings and

accordingly could not place material documents on record imperative for

adjudication of the revival application.

12. It is further submitted that AHPL is now willing to pay the balance debt of

Rs. 18.5 crores within 6 weeks to Respondent No. 1 as per letter dated

12.10.2022, thus it is requested that the settlement be allowed between parties

invoking inherent powers in terms of Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 and the

judgment of this Tribunal in 'Kanoria Sugar and General Manufacturing

Company Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank dated 03.06.2022' wherein Section

7 Application before the NCLT, Kolkata be directed to be withdrawn in terms of

the settlement.

13. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1- J.M. Finance

Asset Reconstruction Company Limited during the course of argument and in

his reply affidavit along with written submissions submitted that the Appellant

is intentionally trying to mislead this Tribunal by stating that no default was

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 12

committed by the Appellant. The Respondent No. 1 had originally filed CP(IB)

04/KB/2019 (Section 7 Application) against the Appellant since the Appellant

had defaulted on its legitimate dues owed to the Respondent No. 1. Moreover,

said Section 7 Application was withdrawn only in light of the assignment to the

Respondent No. 2 on the terms and conditions specified therein. Vide order dated

23.01.2020 passed in presence of the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority had

proceeded to grant liberty to Respondent No. 1 to revive the Section application

in case the settlement between Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 failed.

That the said order was passed with the consent of both Respondent No. 1 and

Appellant. At the time of the passing of the order dated 23.01.2020, no objection

was ever raised by the Appellant with respect to the terms of the settlement or

the liberty granted by the Adjudicating Authority to revive the Section 7

application. The said order has never been challenged by the Appellant and the

same has attained finality.

14. It is further submitted that the mala fides of the Appellant are clearly

evident from the fact that despite the clear default of the Appellant, the Appellant

has filed the present Appeal and is argued before this Tribunal that no default

was committed by it and the default has been committed by Respondent No. 2.

The Appellant by way of the present Appeal is trying to delay and frustrate the

Section 7 application that has been filed by Respondent No. 1. The Appellant

does not deserve any consideration of this Tribunal as the Impugned Order has

granted liberty to the Appellant to take all its requisite defences before the

Adjudicating Authority in CP (IB) 04/KB/2019 including that of non-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 13

impleadment of the Respondent No. 2. Henceforth, the remedy for the Appellant

with respect to the said issue lies before the Adjudicating Authority before which

the matter is sub-judice.

15. It is further submitted that a third party is not a necessary party during

the stage of admission of a Section 7 application and there was no necessity to

arraign Respondent No. 2 as a necessary party before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Appellant has sought to manufacture a picture before this Tribunal that

while passing the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority did not here the

Respondent No. 2 regarding the failure of the settlement and hence the impugned

order is patently illegal and erroneous. In this regard, the Appellant has no locus

standi to make submissions about the necessity of making the Respondent No.

2 a party before the Adjudicating Authority as it is well settled by a judgment of

this Tribunal in the case of 'Vekas Kumar Garg Vs. DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. &

Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 113 of 2021' that in an

application under Section 7 of the IBC the Financial Creditor and the Corporate

Debtor alone are the necessary parties and no third-party intervention is

contemplated at the admission stage.

16. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant both

were very well aware of the restoration application, however, the Respondent No.

2 still intentionally chose not to file any application or raise any challenge before

the Adjudicating Authority. In fact, this reveals the nexus and collusion of the

Appellant and the Respondent No. 2. In light of the aforesaid intentional

omission of the Respondent No. 2 from raising any objection, it is evident that

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 14

Respondent No. 2 was not aggrieved by the impugned order in any manner. The

Adjudicating Authority has also granted liberty to the Appellant to raise the

aforesaid issue in CP(IB) 04/KB/2019.

17. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has the inherent

power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to revive Applications which have

been withdrawn as settled if the settlement fails. Pertinently, this Tribunal in its

judgments has also clarified the aforesaid position.

• Sree Bhadra Parks and Resorts Ltd. Vs. Sri Ramani Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Ch) (Ins.) 06 of 2021, • Amrit Feeds Vs. S.S. Enterprises, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) 678 of 2019 and • Ruchita Modi Vs. Mrs. Kanchan Ostwal and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1000 of 2019.

Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.01.2020

decided the fact that the Adjudicating Authority has the power to revive Section

7 Application:

• M/s Ess Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokhandwala Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2020.

18. It is further submitted that neither the Appellant nor the Respondent No.

2 were estopped from raising the said issue before the Adjudicating Authority.

Further since the said issue was not canvassed before the Adjudicating

Authority, no adjudication on the issue was done. Hence, the said issue cannot

now be raised in Appeal before this Tribunal. The Letter of Revocation was

already a part of the restoration application, whereas the Title Suit No. 322 of

2020 was only filed on 19.10.2020 and the order staying the letter of revocation

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 15

was passed on 20.10.2020. The said Title Suit was filed as a mere afterthought

and it acted as a counterblast to the restoration application filed by the

Respondent No. 1, in order to frustrate the application and cause grave prejudice

to Respondent No. 1. A similar Title Suit bearing NO. 22 of 2021 before the

Commercial Court at Rajarhat was also filed by the Respondent No. 2 on

28.09.2021 i.e. much after the filing of the restoration application. The orders by

way of which the effect of the letter of revocation got stayed were ex-parte ad

interim orders and were passed without even issuing notice to Respondent NO.

1 by the Civil Court/Commercial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such

suits when the Restoration Application was already pending adjudication before

the Adjudicating Authority. Since the Restoration Application dealt with the

revival of an application for instituting the CIRP the sole jurisdiction to entertain

any objections with respect to the same lies with the Adjudicating Authority.

Furthermore, in view of Section 63, 64(2) and 238 of the Code, the Civil

Court/Commercial Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the Title Suit,

when the same was pending adjudicating before the Adjudicating Authority. The

aforesaid actions of the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 further indicate that

the parties were acting in hand in glove with each other.

19. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 on 12.10.2022 indicated

that it would settle the matter with the Respondent No. 1 and make complete

payments. The Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 06.07.2020 had earlier also

made a representation that complete payments would be done by 15.09.2020.

However, no such payments were made as is evident. The said submission was

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 16

being made only to frustrate and delay the present proceedings in as much as

the matter be not referred to the Adjudicating Authority for final adjudication.

Further, neither the Appellant nor the Respondent No. 2 has approached this

Tribunal with clean hands and hence, do not merit any relief from this Tribunal.

The Appellant has raised baseless and frivolous contentions which are contrary

to settled legal principles in order to cause delay & frustrate the legal rights of

the Respondent No. 1 and also create barriers in respect to the liberty granted

by the Adjudicating Authority through its order dated 23.01.2020. In light of the

aforesaid, the present Appeal be dismissed with exemplary costs on the

Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 as the impugned order does not prejudice

the Appellant or the Respondent No. 2 in any manner whatsoever.

20. After hearing Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant and Ld. Counsel for the

Respondent No. 1 and going through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties

and also the Order dated 09.12.2021 passed by this Bench whereby after hearing

Ld. Counsel for the parties, further proceedings have been stayed in CP (IB) No.

04/KB/2019, the Respondent No. 2 - the Assignee 'Abhinandan Holdings Private

Limited' appeared and contended all these facts and submitted that they are

ready and willing to settle the matter with Respondent No. 1. The order dated

23.01.2020 has not been challenged. The settlement has failed since March 2020

and the Agreement is also only till March 2020. Hence, we are of the considered

view that no case for setting aside the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench,

Kolkata) in RST. A. No. 842/KB/2020 in CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019 is made out

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021 17

as the Section 7 Application bearing CP (IB) No. 04/KB/2019 filed by the

Respondent No. 1 was directed to be listed for hearing on 16.03.2021 by the

Adjudicating Authority, therefore, there is no ground for interference. However,

we dispose of the instant Appeal with request to the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata) to hear all the parties

i.e. Appellant, Respondent No. 1 & Respondent No. 2 and after hearing the

parties, the Adjudicating Authority may pass appropriate orders in CP (IB) No.

04/KB/2019 in accordance with law expeditiously. Keeping in view that the

matter is pending before the Adjudicating Authority since 2019, the parties are

at liberty to raise all the relevant issues both in fact and in law before the

Adjudicating Authority. We have not expressed any view on the merits of the

matter and the Adjudicating Authority shall hear the matter afresh uninfluenced

by any observations herein.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant Appeal is

disposed of.

21. Registry to upload the Judgment on the website of this Appellate Tribunal

and send the copy of this Judgment to the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata), forthwith.

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) New Delhi 11th January, 2023 R. Nath.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 339 of 2021