In the matter of

Order Dated: 22.0,4.2024 Coram: Hon'bie Ms. Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial) Honble Ms. Madhu Sinha, Member (Technical) Appearance (Phys ically I Video Conference|: ror trr. Applicant: Adv. Adv. Abhishek Anand, Karan Kohli and Kashish Rehan

For the Respondent: Adv.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPAI{Y LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V I.A. 455 0F 202t IN C.P. (IB)No.2520 of 2018 ORDER

1. The above Interlocutory Application bearing IA. No. 455 of 2O2l is filed by Mala Verma (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant") seeking directions against Mr. Pankaj Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2O16 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") praying for following reliefs:

a) Appoint the Interim Resolution Professional in the of Corporate Insoluency Resolutioru Process the Corporate Debtor tn the matter CP(IB) 2520/MB/2018 titled as nValuelabs LLP us Global Energg Put. Ltd."; b) Direct the Interim Resolution Professional to paA the rent due to the Applicant accrued during the CIRP process since 02/12/2019 for the premises o/ the Applicant in use and possession of the Corporate Debtor; c) Direct the Inteim Resolution Professional to handouer the possesslon of the said prembes of the Applbant whictt are not being utilised bg the Corporate Debtor and the Lease Agreement dt. 12/ 01/ 2018 has alreadg been terminated;

d) Anll other order and/ or direction this Hon'ble Tibunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. Submission bv the Applicant Rent Accrued being adversely affected by the grant of moratorium is part of CIRP Cost: "Tlrc Applbant sub per Section 1a(1)d) IBC duing the period of moratoium the the propertg cannot recouer

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V LA. 455 0F 202t IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 the possession of the propertA from the Corporate Debtor otherwise than through IRP/RP". But according to Regulatioi 31(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, the rent accrued during the period of moratorium (from 02.12.2019 until possession was handed over on 17.08.2022) is considered a part of the CIRP costs. This means that the applicant is entitled to claim the rent accrued during this period as a part of the expenses incurred in the resolution process. Section 31(b) is as follows: . InsoluencA resolutionprocess costs: Insoluencg resolution process costs" under Section 5(13)(e) shall mean- (a) ... (b) amounts due to a person whose rights are prejudiciallg affected ott account of the moratorium imposed. under sectionla(ilF); (c) (d) (e)

Brief Facts of the Case 2. The present Application has been preferred by Applicant Mala Verma with a prayer to "appoint RP in the matter of CP No. 2520 of 2018 and direct the Interim Resolution Professional to pay rent owed to the Applicant for premises used by the Corporate Debtor during the insolvency process since 02.12.2019 and to return possession of premises not utilized by the Corporate Debtor, as the iease agreement has ended.".

3. In the present Application, the Resp the Resolution Professional ttRP") (herein after referred to as a dated O3.O8.2O22 by this Hon'ble Tribunal as the Resolu Corporate Debtor/M.s

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V r.A. 455 0F 202t IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 Global Energy Private Limited which is incorporated under tine "Companies Act 1956" (herein after referred to as "Corporate Debtor") undergoing CIRP pursuant to Admission Order dated 06.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. The Applicant had submitted that she, being a senior citizen, had entered into a lease agreement on 12.01.2018 for a period of 3 years with the Corporate Debtor for premises located at 2, Panchsheel Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, Delhi. Moreover, the Applicant had submitted that the Corporate Debtor had failed to meet its financial obligations under the lease agreement, including rent payments, GST, and TDS deposits. On repeated failures on the part of the CD, the Applicant was compelled to issue termination notice in April 2O2O, demanding vacation of the premises and rendering over the possession. The notice had been sent via email on 22.O4.2O2O and through speed post on 20.O5.2O20. However, the speed post had been returned with the message "Door Locked," indicating that the recipient had been inaccessible or unwilling to accept the notice.

5. The Applicant submitted that on 24.06.2020 via email the Respondent/RP replied to the termination notice and admitted to having the possession of the premises. He informed that on o2.r2.2o79, the Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench, had admitted an application filed under Section 9 of the .tnsoluencA and Bankruptcg Code, 2016, against the Corporate Debtor. The Hon'ble NCLT had appointed Mr. L.V. Shyamsundar as the IRP. The Respondent also mentioned that an appeal had been filed against the admission order dated 02.12.2O19 before the Hon'ble NCLAT and was pending final adjudication.

6. The Applicant submitted that, the Operational Creditor has filed an MA the No.308 of 2O2O before Honble Tri the IRP and appoint Mr. Anurag Jain as IRP, the same Hon'b1e Tribunal vide

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V I.A. 455 0F 202t IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 order 05.O2.2O2O but the IRP expressed his inability to accept the appointment. 7. The Applicant submitted that, the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor are hand in glove in the present case as they were deliberately not letting the IRP to take the charge of the Corporate Debtor even though the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal directed. 8. The Applicant relies on the Judgement passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi titled as "prertta Singh Vs. committee of creditors & ors. " contempt case @q No. os/2o2o compang Appeal @ry finsotaencg) No. lo4 of 2ol9 (pora lg,2o) doted77,12.2o27; states that during a moratorium period, the lessor (property owner) may not be able to recover possession of their property from the Corporate Debtor. This affects the lessor's rights to collect rent. However, the lessor is entitled to recover the rent owed to them, and this amount is included in the costs of the CIRP. This means that the rent owed to the lessor becomes a part of the expenses associated with the insolvency proceedings. 9. Hence this Application

RESPONDENT: 10. The Respondent stated that the Applicant had leased property at No. 2, Panchsheel Community Centre, New Delhi, comprising the entire basement and ground floor, along with fixtures and furniture, for three years starting from l2-O1.2018 prior to the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority, upon receiving the Operational Creditor's application under Section 9 of the Code, had initiated the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on 02.I2.2O19, appoin Shyamsunder as the IRP and declaring a moratorium under S Code. The Respondent further submitted that one of the of Directors of the IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V I.A. 455 0F 2021 ffi IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 Corporate Debtor had appealed the CIRP order of O2.l2.2OIg before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunai in company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1415 of 2079. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, via interim orders on 09. 12.2019, had instructed the IRP to refrain from making a public announcement. 1 1. The Respondent submitted that following an adverse ruling by the Appellate Tribunai on 09.02.2019, a suspended board of director of the Corporate Debtor filed Civil Appeal No. 671 of 2021 before the Supreme Court, leading to the stay of the CIRP through an order dated 26.02.2021.

Ultimately the Hon,ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 31.03.2022,hifted, the stay on the CIRp and instructed the Adjudicating Authority to resume proceedings for the Corporate Debtor's CIRP. 12. During the moratorium period under Section 14 of the Code, the Applicant issued a termination notice dated 22.O4.2O2O to the Corporate Debtor, requesting full physical possession of the premises, including fixtures, furniture, workstations, and cubicle. During the stay of CIRP since its initiation on 02.12.2019, American Express Banking Corp., a financial creditor, filed IA No. 2861 of 2021, seeking directions against the IRP Mr. M.L. Shyamsunder or appointment of a new IRP to advance the CIRP. The Adjudicating Authorit;r, in its order dated 06.05.2022, appointed Mr. Dilipkumar Natvarlal Jagad as the new IRP from the panel of insolvency professionals. 13. The Respondent further submitted that in accordance with Regulation 6(2)(c) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the deadline for submission of proof of claim, as specified in the public announcement made by Mr. Dipkumar Natvarlal Jagad (erstwhile IRP) on 09.06.2022 in FORM A, was 22.06.2022.

The Adjudicating Authority granted the exclusion of the time period from 02.12.2019 to 08.06.2022 from the CIRP and vide order dated O3.O8.2O22 appointed the Respondent as the Rp b tions IA No. 2lIO of 2022 and I.A. No. 21 1 1 of 2022, res

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V I.A. 455 0F 202r IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 14. The Respondent further stated that the applicant's claim has been rejected due to the fact that the possession of the property in question was already transferred to the applicant by the Resolution"Professional vide letter dated 77.O8.2022. 15. The Respondent relies on the Judgement passed by the Hon,ble NCLAT in "JAS Telecom Put. Ltd. vs. Eolane Electronics Bangalore pvt. Ltd.[Compang Appeal (AT)(Insoktencg) No.37 of 2O18'l Wherein it is held that amounts due to persons whose rights are affected by the moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) are considered part of the insolvency resolution process costs, as per Regulation 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board. of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2Ol6.The aforesaid Judgement was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.07.2018. 16. While concluding the arguments the Ld. Counsel summarised as under:

a. The Applicant filed a claim amounting to Rs. 64,r3,11g on 2g.06.2022 in FORM-B- The Respondent admitted a portion of the claim, totalling Rs. 23,66,000, including rent owed until the lease agreement's validity ended on 30.II.2O2O.

b. During the 3rd Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting on 05.09 .2022, it was resolved that accrued rent from 0g.06.2022 to lr.og.2o22, amounting to Rs. 5,09,000, would be considered part of the cIRp costs. However, the Respondent rejected the claim of Rs. 23,66,000 and inform the same via email on rr .r1.2022. The Applicant hasn,t filed a separate application regarding this rejection.

c. Despite the Corporate Debtor on rent pa5rments, the Applicant didn't take any before the initiation of ffi es 7 BAl

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V ffi I.A. 455 0F 2027 IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 the cIRP. consequently, the Respondent contends that the application should be dismissed. d' The applicant's failure to disclose the transfer of possession rendered their then-current application moot. The respondent d.enied any merit to the applicant's claims and asserted that the application lacked bona fides. They argued that granting the applicant,s prayers would cause irreparable harm to all stakeholders involved. 17' The Respondent submits that it is a well settled principal of law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court of India that a litigant who is coming to the court must come with clean hands however the Applicant is guilty of ,suppresslo uari" and "suggestio Falsi." as they have concealed. material facts from this Hon ble Adjudicating Authority. REJOINDER BY APPLICANT: 18'The assertion made in paragraph 12 was refuted and denied. It was argued that the Respondent, through a letter dated 17.L1.2022, did not admit the Applicant's claim of Rs. 23,66,000, which included rent until the lease agreement's validity till 30. 17.2o2o. The Applicant was accused of deliberately concealing this information from the Adjudicating Authorify. Additionally, it was contended that the Respondent had provisionally approved the Applicant,s claim, subject to further verification. The Respondent purposely omitted filing its letter dated ro.ro.2o22 and the Appricant,s repry dated 20.10.2022, withholding crucial information from the Tribunar. 19' The assertion presented in paragraph 13 is vehemently refuted and dismissed as false' There is a complete lack of acknowledgment regarding the purported convening of the 3rd committee of creditors (coc) meeting by the Respondent or any unanimous approval of discu Furthermore, it is firmly asserted that the exclusion of the 2.2019 until 08.06.2022

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V ffi r.A. 455 0F 2021 IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 does not absolve the obligation to settle accrued rent. This is grounded in the fact that the moratorium was still in effect during this period, and previous IRp were in possession of the property. Additionally, the claim suggesting the potential dismissal of the application on the basis of rent being encompassed within the CIRp costs is emphatically rejected. 20' The assertions made in paragraph 74 are refuted and deemed false. It is disputed that the Respondent admitted the Applicant,s claim to Rs. 23,66,000 or that the claim was never contested, as it was rejected in a letter dated 77'1r'2022' Moreover, the contention that the relief sought by the Applicant has become irrelevant, leading to potential dismissal of the present application, is also denied. 21' Regarding paragraphs 15-19, the claims are rebutted as false. The Applicant did not approach the Tribunal with unclean hands, nor did they attempt to mislead by concealing vital information. It is acknowledged that the former Rp transferred possession of the Applicant's property at2,panscheel community center' New Delhi, comprising the entire basement and ground floor, as per the possession letter dated 12.o8.2022. The Applicant had submitted Annexure A-8, containing the possession letter, on 0 7.og.2022, thus refuting any accusation of concealment' claims of suppression of facts or intention to disrupt the corporate Debtor's GIRP are also rejected. Additionally, the fact of possession transfers by the former RP to the Appticant had been previously brought to the Tribunal's attention. FINDINGS 22' After having appreciated the contentions of both the Ld. counsels and on perusal of the documents placed on record with their able assistance, what emerges is that the Corporate Debtor was to CIRP on O2,I2.2O|9. T]ne Hon'ble NCLAT vide order dated 09.1 publication by the IRp and also the constitution of CoC

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V LA. 455 0F 2027 IN ffiH C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 23' The contention of the Applicant is that the lease agreement was terminated on dated 22'06'2020 but the property in question was ultimately handed over to the Applicant only on 17.08.2022 by the Respondent/Rp. The claim of the Applicant is for the payment of rent from O2.12.2O7g. 24'on the other hand, the contention of the Respondent is that he has already admitted the claim of the Applicant till the expiry of lease agreement i.e. 30' 11 '2o2o amounting to Rs. 23,66,000 /- and, has stated that the remaining amount of Rs' 40,47 ,277 .5o / - is under verification.vide letter dated 17 .11.2022, Respondent/Rp has conveyed as under to the Applicant: "Accordinglg, we ha.ue receiued. aour claim d.ated. 28.06.2022 in ctaim Form B under Regulations 7 of the )IRP Regutations. you are requested. to note d.own the status of gour clatm along with the foltowing obseruations mad.e bg the Rp: Sr. ffo Na.me of Claimant Amount of Claim Amount of Approued I Mrs.Mala Verma 64,13,1 BB 23,66,00 Remarks l.Claim of Rent lws been admitted till date of 30.11.2020 i.e. titt the dote of lease agreement uatid. 2' Once the Company und.ergoes CIRP, the IRp/Rp is not tiable to bear the expenses incurred" bg or on behatf of the suspend"ed. board. of directors until and. unres.s thepossesslon of the properta i.s in the custodg of tlrc IRp/ Rp or the property is used. for commerciar purpose bu IP/RP. The property was neuer in the custodg of Rp. 3. There b no express priuitg of contract after the initiation of cIRp. Hence, tf the expiry d.ate of the uarid.ity of the agreement, then theg are liable personallg for the the Corporate Debtor or L0

IN THE NATIONAL COMPAI{Y LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, COURT V I.A. 455 0F 2021 IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 the RP to bear its expenses as all them are separate enttties LN the eyes of taw. 4. If the sifuation persrsfs rn this case, the suspend.ed. board" of directors will thereafter be constd.ered. trespassers to the properta.,

25' From the perusal of the above, it is evident that the partial claim has been rejected by the Respondent/RP stating that the property was never in the custody of RP' This statement of respondent is factually incorrect as it is the Respondent/RP who vide letter dated t7.o8.2o22 handed over the possession of the property to the Applicant. Thus, this submission on the part of the Respondent/RP stating that the property was not in the custody of Rp and hence the claim is rejected,merits no consideration. The document handing over the possession back to the Appricant is reproduced here under: "The undersigned", Mr. Mahuir singh, Ad.uocates, hautng office at chamber No 730, Aduocates chambers block, Rohini Distrtct courts, Delhi I 10085 appointed. as the authorized. representatiue of the company bg Mn Dilipkumar NatuarlalJagad., being Inteim Resolution professianal of Global Energg Limited. (hereinafter referred. to as ,compang,), who was appointed bg the ord"er of Nationar company Law Tibunar, Mumbai Bench dated 6th May, 2022 (Copa of ord.er receiued. on Bth June, 2022) tn the matter IA No. 286r of 202r in cp (IB) 2s2o of 201g, passed. in the matter of value Labs LLP vs Globat Energg piuate Limited., attached. as Annexure I and Annexure II respectiuery, und.er the Insoruency & Bankruptcg code, 2016 (hereinafter referred. to a.s ,cod.e,) and. in exercbe of the powers conferred" und.er sectton 17 of the cod.e and. regulation made there und.er, the InsoluencA and. Bankruptcg Board of India (Corporate Insoluencg Resolu Regulations,20j6 took possesslon of the lease hold. Y y situated at 2,

1,1,

IN THE NATI.NAL C.MPAI\IY LAw TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, C.URT V ffi I.A. 455 0F 2021 IN C.P. (IB) No. 2520 of 2018 Panchsheel community centre, New Delhi and. as the said. properta b no required for the corporate Insoluency Resolution process, and. to reduce cosf' as per conculTence with the committee of credttors, hand. ouer the said Tease hord. property to the ressor Ms. Mara verma tod.ay., 26' rn addition' the Ld' counsel for the Applicant also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'bre N,LAT in prerna singh a. coc pF m/s xarta Food. and. Beuerages Put Ltd' wherein the Honble NCLAT has categorically held the inclusion of the Post-cIRP rental dues in cIRp costs and their payments on priority' the Honble NCLAT states, "that if the ight of thelessor to recouer rent is affected on account of a moratorium, the lessor is entitted. to recouer the rent, which shalt be tnctud.ed. in the CIRp cost,. 27 ' Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, prayer (bf of the rA is allowed' During the course of arguments, the Ld. counsel for the Applicants fairly submitted that in view of changed circumstances he is not pressing the prayer (a) and (c). IA stands disposed of in above terms.

SD/- SD/- MADHU SINHA REETA KOHLI MEMBER (TECHNTCAL) MEMBER (JUDICIALI

Certified Tnre Cop'r n /d l1elr-Ll Date of Apitiicatiou \1- Number ol'P;,it3es l- 6,o Fee Pai.i lis Applicarri cui;tC i',rr c;liecticn copy snqlt l?4 It Copy p:'epaled on Copy lssucd on Ilegistrar h,lationalCompany Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 1,2