In the matter of Gwalior Polypipes Limited

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENCH AT INDORE CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 [An application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016]

In the Matter of: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Registered Office at 27 BKC, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ……Applicant/Financial Creditor Versus Gwalior Polypipes Limited (Sanju Industrial) Polypipes Estate, Malanpur Industrial Area, Malanpur-477117 District Bhind, M.P. ……Respondent/Corporate Debtor Coram: Mahendra Khandelwal, Hon’ble Member (J) Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, Hon’ble Member (T) Appearance: For the Applicant : Ld. Adv. Mr. Hem Buch For the Respondent : Ld. Adv. Mr. Vivek Khedkar a.w. Ld. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary Order Pronounced On: 01.09.2023 ORDER 1. The present application has been filed on 15th October, 2019 by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through its authorized signatory Mr. Parag B. Dholakia, Vice President of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (Financial Creditor), under Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) against M/s Gwalior Polypipes Limited (Corporate Debtor). The default amount as stated by the Financial Creditor is of Rs. 30,63,53,811/-. The date of default is stated by the Financial Creditor is 31.03.2001.

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019

Contention of the Financial Creditor: 2. The averments made by the Financial Creditor through its application and brief submissions are summarised here as under:- (i) The Corporate Debtor had availed financial assistance from State Bank of India (The Original Lender) from the year 1984, which came to be renewed/enhanced/reduced from time to time till 2002. (ii) The Financial Creditor vide its sanctioned letter dated 09.03.1998 sanctioned the Credit Facility aggregating to Rs 12.70 Crores to the Corporate Debtor. Following that an agreement of loan for overall limit was executed by and between the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor. The said Credit Facilities were secured by assets hypothecated and mortgaged by the Corporate Debtor vide agreement dated 02.06.1998. Then on 25.09.2000, the Financial Creditor vide its arrangement letter sanctioned/renewed/reduced the Credit Facilities aggregating to Rs 5.10 Crores. Further on 07.05.2001, the Corporate Debtor through its Managing Director executed a revival letter. Thereafter again the Financial Creditor vide its agreement dated 02.02.2002 sanctioned/renewed/reduced Credit Facilities aggregating to Rs 3.95 Crores. On 05.02.2002, the Board of Directors of Corporate Debtors resolved to avail the Credit Facilities to Rs 3.95 Crores from the Financial Creditor. Following that the Financial Creditor vide its letter dated 19.04.2002 regarding grant of individual limits within the overall limits advised the Corporate Debtor that within the overall or aggregated limit of Rs. 12.70 Crores, the Financial Creditor has decided to grant the aforesaid Credit Facilities aggregating to Rs 3.95 Crores to the Corporate Debtor. (ii) In pursuance to the defaults committed by the Corporate Debtor, the original lender had recalled its outstanding vide recall notice dated 18.08.2003. The original lender (State Bank of India) filed an Original Application before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur being the Original Application No. 01/2004.

2 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 (iii) Following that the debt of the Corporate Debtor came to be assigned to the petitioner/Financial Creditor (Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited) by the original lender (State Bank of India) vide the deed of assignment dated 16.01.2006, which is placed as Annexure-U page No. 243 to 244 of the petition. Consequently, the present petitioner/Financial Creditor took over the dues of the Corporate Debtor from the original lender and attained the capacity of being a creditor to the Corporate Debtor. The present petitioner/Financial Creditor also came to be substituted in place of the original lender in the aforementioned original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal issued an interim recovery certificate dated 15.03.2007 in favour of the Financial Creditor on the basis of admission in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor of the year 2004-05 (Annexure-N page No. 112 to 163 of the petition), directing the Corporate Debtor to pay the amount of Rs. 01,81,40,225/-. The Corporate Debtor had challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Bench at Allahabad by filing an Appeal No. R-802/2007, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 26.08.2009. As per the said interim certificate, the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,81,40,225/- to the Financial Creditor. (iv) The Corporate Debtor has, time and again, vide its Financial Statements from the Assessment Years 2005-06 right up to 2017-18, acknowledged the loan payable and the amount outstanding due to the financial creditor, the recall of the Facilities by the Original Lender, the Original Application filed by the Original Lender, the measures under the Securitization and the Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) and recognized the petitioner/Financial Creditor herein as a Creditor. (v) The Financial Creditor, has vide the Additional Affidavit of the Financial Creditor in Support of Rebuttal Documents dated

3 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019

02.07.2020, filed the copies of the relevant pages of the Financial Statements of the Corporate Debtor for the following Assessment years; a. AY 2005-06 Annexure A, Page No. 3-4 of the Additional Affidavit b. AY 2006-07 Annexure B, Page No. 5-8 of the Additional Affidavit c. AY 2008-09 Annexure D, Page No. 12-15 of the Additional Affidavit d. AY 2009-10 Annexure E, Page No. 16-17 of the Additional Affidavit e. AY 2012-13 Annexure F, Page No. 18-20 of the Additional Affidavit f. AY 2013-14 Annexure G, Page No. 21-23 of the Additional Affidavit g. AY 2014-15 Annexure H, Page No. 24-26 of the Additional Affidavit h. AY 2015-16 Annexure A, Page No. 30-32 of the Additional Affidavit Further, the Financial Creditor has also vide its Additional Documents dated 01.09.2021 placed on record the Financial Statement of the Corporate Debtor for the Assessment year 2017-18 (page No. 2-264). (vi) The relevant pages from the Financial Statements of the Corporate Debtor are detailed herein as under : Sr Assessment Reference Relevant No. Year Page Number 1. 2005-06 Annexure A of the Additional Affidavit 4 2. 2006-07 Annexure B of the Additional Affidavit 5, 8 3. 2007-08 Annexure C of the Additional Affidavit 11 4. 2009-10 Annexure E of the Additional Affidavit 17 5. 2012-13 Annexure F of the Additional Affidavit 18 6. 2013-14 Annexure G of the Additional Affidavit 21 7. 2015-16 Annexure I of the Additional Affidavit 27 8. 2017-18 Produced separately vide Additional 98, 113 Documents of the Financial Creditor (vii) The Financial Creditor has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued a demand notice dated 06.07.2007 under Section 13(2) of the IBC. Subsequently, the Financial Creditor has taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties on 29.11.2011. The Corporate Debtor has filed a securitization application before the Hon’ble

4 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019

Debts Tribunal Recovery at Jabalpur challenging the action taken by the Financial Creditor under the SARFAESI Act which is pending at present. (viii) The Financial Creditor states that as on 15.06.2019, a sum of Rs. 30,63,53,811/- was due from the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount together with further interest thereon. Contention of the Corporate Debtor: 3. The Corporate Debtor has also filed its reply and the written submissions thereon. The plea taken by the Corporate Debtor is summarized as under: - (i) The application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Code is not maintainable and the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the limitation as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, as the date of default stated by the Financial Creditor is 31.03.2001 whereas the application is filed after the prescribed limitation period of 3 years. (ii) On the date when the application is filed under Section 7 of the IBC, the following proceedings are pending between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor…….. OA No. 01/2004, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, S.A. No. 124 of 2012 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. W.P. No. 726/2008 before Hon’ble High Court Gwalior. W.P. No. 4743 of 2014 before Hon’ble High Court Gwalior. MCC No. 168/2013 before Hon’ble High Court Gwalior (Winding up petitions filed against the Corporate Debtor by the Financial Creditor).

It is submitted that all the above petitions are pending for and against the Corporate Debtor arising out of the same working capital agreement dated 02.06.1998. As such there are various litigation on the same matter pending before the various Platforms including Hon’ble High Court of M.P. Bench at Gwalior. (iii) The entries appearing in the balance sheet do not amount to extension of the limitation period as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court 5 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 in the matter of Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd & Anr. in C.A. No. 6347/2019. The balance sheet/financial statement in the present case did not amount to acknowledgment of liability in as much as the Auditor’s report which must be read alongwith the balance sheets, would make it clear that there was no unequivocal acknowledgment of debt, and caveats had been entered by way of notes in the Auditor’s report. Further the balance sheet/financial statement of the Corporate Debtor did not acknowledge or admit any liability. Rather the Corporate Debtor had disputed and denied its liability. (iv) The Financial Creditor was never substituted by any order of Hon’ble DRT Jabalpur and the submissions so made by the Financial Creditor is purely misleading and false statement. Further the interim recovery certificate issued by the Hon’ble DRT Jabalpur was also cancelled by the Hon’ble DRAT. (v) The Financial Creditor is not an asset reconstruction company and, therefore, the Financial Creditor is not entitled for an assignment as per RBI guidelines. Due to above, no security interest was transferred in favour of the Financial Creditor. (vi) For the purposes of IBC 2016, there is no relevance of any financial statement, which is prior to the date of IBC 2016 i.e., December 2016 as the IBC 2016 is applicable in India from 01.12.2016. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record. The Corporate Debtor had availed financial assistance from State Bank of India (the Original Lender) from the year 1998 which came to be renewed/enhanced/reduced from time to time till 2002. The said credit facilities were secured by the assets hypothecated and mortgaged by the Corporate Debtor. In pursuance to the defaults committed by the Corporate Debtor, the original lender had recalled its outstanding vide recall notice dated 18.08.2003. The debt of the Corporate Debtor came to be assigned to the applicant Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vide deed of assignment dated 16.01.2006. 6 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019

4.1 The main ground raised on behalf of the Corporate Debtor is that the application is time barred. It has been submitted that admittedly the application was filed in the month of October, 2019 and the cause of action was accrued in favour of the State Bank of India on 31.03.2001; therefore, State Bank of India can directly approach before any Court of law/Tribunal within the period of limitation of three years i.e. 31.03.2004 only. In the context however, it is pleaded on behalf of the Financial Creditor that the limitation has got extended due to acknowledgment made by the Corporate Debtor in their financial statements/balance-sheets for the years 2004-05 to 2016-17. 4.2 During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor Shri Vivek Khedkar, referred to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd V. Bishal Jaiswal, (2021) 6 SCC 366 on the issue of treatment of acknowledgment made in the balance sheet with caveat. One of the issues before the Supreme Court in this case was whether an entry made in a balance sheet of a corporate debtor would amount to an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor relied upon para 35 of the judgment which reads as under: 35. A perusal of the aforesaid sections would show that there is no doubt that the filing of a balance sheet in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act is mandatory, any transgression of the same being punishable by law. However, what is of importance is that notes that are annexed to or forming part of such financial statements are expressly recognised by Section 134(7). Equally, the auditor's report may also enter caveats with regard to acknowledgments made in the books of accounts including the balance sheet. A perusal of the aforesaid would show that the statement of law contained in Bengal Silk Mills [Bengal Silk Mills Co. v. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff, 1961 SCC Online Cal 128 : AIR 1962 Cal 115] , that there is a compulsion in law to prepare a balance sheet but no compulsion to make any particular admission, is correct in law as it 7 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 would depend on the facts of each case as to whether an entry made in a balance sheet qua any particular creditor is unequivocal or has been entered into with caveats, which then has to be examined on a case by case basis to establish whether an acknowledgment of liability has, in fact, been made, thereby extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.” As per the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, it would depend on the facts of each case as to whether an entry made in a balance sheet qua any particular creditor is unequivocal or has been entered into with caveats, which then has to be examined on a case-by-case basis to establish whether an acknowledgment of liability has, in fact, been made, thereby extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Now, we will examine the relevant entries made in the balance sheet. 4.3 We have perused these financial statements. The balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor as on 31.03.2006 (for FY 2005-06) clearly reflects the secured loan from State Bank of India at Rs. 1,81,40,225/-. In the notes of accounts thereof (Note No. 5), it is mentioned that the State Bank of India at Gwalior with whom the company was enjoying as credit facilities for its working capital requirement have since cancelled the limit and recalled the facility for its working capital requirement on 18.08.2003; and that the bank has filed a suit for a recovery of the loan before the DRT Jabalpur and the proceedings are in progress before the DRT. The same balance sheet of FY 2005-06 also reflects the corresponding figures as on 31.03.2005 also. Though the balance sheet for FY 2004-05 has not been enclosed, it has been stated that the Hon'ble DRT had issued an interim recovery certificate dated 15.03.2007 on the basis of the balance sheet for FY 2004-05. Even otherwise it is also noted that the default date is stated to be since 31.03.2001. Following that, on 02.02.2002, the Financial Creditor had revised limits and reduced that to Rs 3.5 crores only. On 05.02.2002, the Board of Directors of Corporate Debtors had also given its ascent. But then due to further default, the Financial Creditor had issued on 18.08.2003 the recall notice for the entire facility and thus the default date for balance amount [ on reduced limit] 8 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 can be taken as 18.08.2003 also. Thus on consideration of these facts, acknowledgement as per balance sheet as on 31.03.2006 extends the limitation till that day and as such there is no ambiguity. Then the balance sheet as on 31.03.2007 (for FY 2006-07) reflects the secured loan at Rs. 1,81,40,225/- [ the same amount] in the name of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. In the notes of financial statements (Note No.1), the facts of having taken the working capital facilities from State Bank of India is mentioned. Moreover, the facts that in August 2003 State Bank of India had cancelled the limits and recalled facility and filed a suit before DRT is also mentioned therein in the same notes. The fact of assignment of the loan from State Bank of India to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited is also mentioned. It also shows that the outstanding from bank and interest thereon had been provided on the basis of statement of account received form the State Bank of India which is under dispute and that interest of cash credit from bank has not been provided for the year as the Directors are of the view that the provisions made till the last year, as a matter of prudence, are more than sufficient to cover the interest till 31.03.2007. 4.4 We also noted that the same amount is reflected as a secured loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2008 (for FY 2007-08). Also in the notes on account the similar fact as mentioned in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2007 is given. But then the balance sheet as on 31.03.2009 (for FY 2008-09) reflects the same loan in the name of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited as unsecured loan. In the notes on financial statements it is stated that following deed of assignment of the loan from State Bank of India to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, no documents were executed for transfer of charge and, therefore, in view of the received legal advice, the loan assigned to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has been reclassified as unsecured loan. Thereafter the balance sheet as on 31.03.2010, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013, 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015 and 31.06.2016 shows the debt at the same amount of Rs 1,81,40,225/- as short-term borrowing. It is noted that the Corporate Debtor had submitted a letter dated 09.07.2018 to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for settlement of its dues whereby it had proposed to 9 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 enter into an OTS (One Time Settlement) by making a lump sum amount payment of Rs. 90 Lac. We also find that the said amount has also reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2017 also and as per note No. 4.2 given in the disclosure of significant accounting policies, it has stated that the interest on unsecured loan payable to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has not been provided for the year as the liability amount and transfer of a security interest has been disputed. For a ready reference the entire note at 4.2 (b) is reproduced here as under: - 4.2 (b) (i) Financial liabilities and borrowings: - Working capital facilities were originally sanctioned by State Bank of India Gwalior. The said loan was secured by first on all assets of the company and a personal guarantee by Managing Director, a Promoter and two Former Directors of the Company. The said working capital facilities were further secured by mortgage of land, building and plant and machinery of the units of the company. (ii) During August, 2003, State Bank of India had cancelled the limits and recalled the loans and filed a suit before the DRT Jabalpur for recovery of the amount due. Subsequently, State Bank of India had assigned the said loan to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (KMBL), pursuant to the execution of a deed of assignment on 16.01.2006. (iii) The loan payable to KMBL has been consistently considered as unsecured, as no charge on the assets has ever been created/registered in its favour. KMBL had issued a notice dated 06.07.2007to the Company under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act 2002, despite being an unsecured creditor against which the company filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior on the ground that it assignee assigning of the debt is not a secured creditors and hence cannot take action under SARFAESI Act 2002. During the pendency of the case 10 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 but before final hearing, KMBL took an action on 28/29-11- 2011 purportedly under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act 2002 and took the symbolic possession of the assets of the Company. On being approached by the Company against the said action of KMBL, an order dated 07.12.2011 was passed by the Hon’ble High Court directing KMBL that no coercive action be taken against the Company. Later the Hon’ble High Court directed the Company to file appropriate application before the DRT against the action of KMBL taken under SARFAESI Act 2002. The company has filed the application before the DRT, which is being heard. (iv) Interest on unsecured loans payable to KMBL has not been provided for the year as the liability amount and transfer of security interest has been disputed. Further that Directors are of the view that existing provisions in the books made earlier as a matter of prudence are more than sufficient to cover the interest liability, if held otherwise, and the shortfall shall be dealt with on cash basis at the time of settlement. 4.5 From the perusal of the various notes as appended to the financial statements as well as keeping in view the OTS proposal whereby it has proposed to pay an amount of Rs. 90 Lacs as against the principal amount of Rs. 1,81,40,225/- reflects that it does acknowledge the liability through its various balance sheets year after year and the dispute if any could be as regards the quantum of interest and as to whether the debt would be considered as secured or unsecured. The notes/ caveats in the balance sheets cannot be read as a categorical denial of the liability in full. We are thus of the view that there is a debt above threshold limit, the payment of which is defaulted by the Corporate Debtor. The acknowledgment through balance sheet does extend the limitation period and as such we hold that the application is well within the extended limitation period and the same is maintainable. The application otherwise is complete and is in order.

11 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019

4.6 The Corporate Debtor has also taken a plea of pendency of multiple litigations between the parties. However, the plea so taken would have no bearing onto the maintainability of Section 7 Petition. Moreover, ‘existence of any dispute’ is not a defence that can be taken under Section 7 of the IBC. It can be considered in Section 9 of the IBC. In Section 7 we need to see whether there is ‘financial debt’ and ‘default’ thereto. 4.7 The learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Vidharbha Industries Power Limited Vs Axis Bank reported in (2022) 8 SCC 352 (Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2021) in support of their plea that power under Section 7 is discretionary in nature and before admitting the matter various factors may be taken into consideration because in the provision “May” word has been used instead of “Shall”. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision of NCLT Indore Bench in the matter of State Bank of India Vs Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (TP 82 of 2019 [CP (IB) 500 of 2018]. 4.8 We have noted the argument advanced by the learned counsel in this regard. However, we note that in a recent judgment, in the context of a corporate debtor Kranthi Edifice Pvt Ltd, in the case of M Suresh Kumar Reddy Vs Canara Bank & Ors, in Civil Appeal No 7121 of 2022, reported in (2023) ibclaw.in 67 SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again observed that it was clarified by the order in review that the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries was in the context of a set of facts and hence the decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries cannot be read and understood as taking a view which is contrary to the view taken in the case of Innovative Industries and E S Krishnamurthy; and that the view taken in the case of Innovative Industries still holds good. 4.9 Having considered the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the application for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor deserves to be admitted. 5. In view of the above, we pass the following order: (i) The Corporate Debtor Gwalior Polypipes Limited is admitted in 12 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ii) The moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is declared for prohibiting all of the following in terms of Section 14(1) of the Code. a. the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; b. transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; c. any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; d. the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. (iii) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or until this Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the case may be. (iv) As proposed by the Financial Creditor, we appoint Mr. Satyen Saraswat having registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01423/2018- 2019/12189,having address at: B 2602, DB Woods, Krishna Vatika Marg, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 (e-mail: satyen.saraswat@gmail.com)to act as an Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] under Section 13(1)(c) of the Code. He shall conduct 13 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r.w. Regulations made thereunder. (v) The IRP so appointed shall make a public announcement of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and call for submission of claims under Section 15 as required by Section 13(1) (b) of the Code. (vi) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended, or interrupted during the moratorium period. The corporate debtor to provide effective assistance to the IRP as and when he takes charge of the assets and management of the corporate debtor. (vii) The IRP shall perform all his functions as contemplated, inter-alia, by Sections 17, 18, 20 & 21 of the Code. It is further made clear that all personnel connected with Corporate Debtor, its Promoter or any other person associated with management of the Corporate Debtor are under legal obligation under Section 19 of the Code extending every assistance and co-operation to the Interim Resolution Professional. Where any personnel of the Corporate Debtor, its Promoter or any other person required to assist or co-operate with IRP, do not assist or co-operate the IRP is at liberty to make appropriate application to this Adjudicating Authority with a prayer for passing an appropriate order. (viii) The IRP shall be under duty to protect and preserve the value of the property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and manage the operations of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern as a part of obligation imposed by Section 20 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ix) The Financial Creditor is directed to pay an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the IRP within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order for the purpose of smooth conduct of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and IRP to file proof of receipt of such amount to this Adjudicating Authority along with First Progress Report. Subsequently, IRP may raise further demands for Interim funds, which shall be provided as per Rules.

14 | P age

CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 (x) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Financial Creditor, Corporate Debtor and to the Interim Resolution Professional and the concerned Registrar of Companies, after completion of necessary formalities, within seven working days and upload the same on website immediately after pronouncement of the order. (xi) The IRP shall also serve a copy of this order to the various departments such as Income Tax, GST, State Trade Tax, and Provident Fund etc. who are likely to have their claim against Corporate Debtor as well as to the trade unions/employee’s associations so that they are informed of the initiating of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor timely. (xii) The commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process shall be effective from the date of this order. 10. Accordingly, CP(IB)/06/MP/2019 stands admitted.

Sd/- Sd/- KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR SINGH MAHENDRA KHANDELWAL MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Narendra S. Tomar / Stenographer

15 | P age