In the matter of Mast Innovative Products Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: M/s. Valdel Projects Private Limited #27, KCN Towers, Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Petitioner / Financial Creditor Versus M/s. Mast Innovative Products Pvt. Ltd. #113, 17th ‘A’ Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 055. … Respondent / Corporate Debtor Order delivered on: 22nd October, 2024 CORAM: 1. Hon’ble Shri K. Biswal, Member (Judicial) 2. Hon’ble Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Member (Technical) PRESENT: For the Petitioner : Shri Mahaveer Jain, PCS For the Respondent : Smt. P. Chithra Nirmala, Adv. ORDER Per: Manoj Kumar Dubey, Member (Technical) 1. The instant Petition has been filed on 19.01.2024 u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter as ‘IBC / Code’) r/w Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by M/s. Valdel Projects Private Limited (hereinafter as ‘Petitioner / Financial Creditor’) with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s. Mast Innovative Products Private Limited (hereinafter as ‘Respondent / Corporate Debtor’) for defaulting in payment of a debt of an amount of Rs.5,29,56,000/- inclusive of interest. 2. The Corporate Debtor – M/s. Mast Innovative Products Private Limited is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 22.08.2006 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 bearing CIN: U51103KA2006PTC040258 having its registered address as per MCA website is at #113, 17th ‘A’ Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560085. Its present Authorised Share Capital is Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) divided into 20,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each and the Paid-up Capital is Rs.17,74,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Seventy Four Thousand only) divided into 1,77,400 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. 3. In accordance with Column 2 of Part-IV of Form-1 filed with the Petition, the details of default are extracted hereunder:

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

4. Further, the Date of Default as per the Record of Default in Form-D issued by the NeSL was 25.03.2022. 5. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Financial Creditor is as under: 5.1 The Corporate Debtor through its promoter, director and shareholder Shri Sokalchand Mahendrakumar (holding DIN: 00237999 (resigned from the Directorship with effect from 26.06.2017)) had approached the Financial Creditor for availing a short-term Loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Fifty Lakhs only) for a period of six months (due on 30.06.2012) at an interest rate of 12% p.a. Further, the Corporate Debtor, had also represented and undertook that the repayment of Loan would be strictly as per the Loan Agreement executed on 29.12.2011 and Addendum Agreement executed on 30.12.2011. 5.2 The Financial Creditor (FC) at its Board Meeting held on 24.08.2011 sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor against the shares of the two Directors of the CD, subject to the specific terms and conditions stipulated in Loan cum Guarantee Agreement executed between the CD and FC on 29.12.2011, wherein Mr.Mahendra Kumar and Mr. Sokalchand P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Guarantor’), who were Directors of the Company personally guaranteed on the payment obligations of Principal along with the interest on part of the Corporate Debtor. 5.3 It is stated that Addendum to the Loan cum Guarantee Agreement was executed on 30.12.2011 to revise the rate of interest payable for repayment to 24% p.a. payable at the end of every month as against 12% p.a. which was originally agreed upon under the Agreement dated 29.12.2011. Pursuant to aforesaid representations and guarantee made by CD as well as others, subject to the adherence of the terms of repayments of the said Loan, the FC advanced the loan at the interest

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024 of 24% per annum in accordance with the Addendum Agreement on 30.12.2011. 5.4 It is stated that a total of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was disbursed to the CD in the following instalments: Date Amount disbursed (Rs.) Cheque No. 09.12.2011 75,00,000/- 287913 26.12.2011 75,00,000/- 287904 27.12.2011 50,00,000/- 287905 02.01.2012 50,00,000/- 287943 5.5 It is stated that the CD’s and Guarantors were jointly and severally liable to pay the dues towards both the Loan facilities. They have deliberately and in complete contravention of the aforesaid Loan Agreement failed to make the due payment, even after repeated written and oral reminders as well as the notices. 5.6 The CD had remitted an amount of only Rs. 1,51,50,000/-. However, as on date the amount due is Rs. 5,29,56,000/- which is inclusive of 24% interest. On failure on part of the CD to pay the Loan amount gives right to the FC to trigger the CIRP under the IBC, 2016. Further, the Balance Sheets of the CD also show the existence of the instant debt, and the same amounts to admission of the aforesaid liability by the CD.

However, it has failed to clear the outstanding dues of the FC. 5.7 It is averred that the CD is well aware of the said default and had also acknowledged the same vide its Financial Statements prepared for the Financial Year ended 31.03.2016 which was duly adopted by the shareholders of the CD in their Annual General Meeting (AGM) dated 30.09.2016. The same was further acknowledged in e-Form AOC-4 filed with Registrar of Companies Bangalore, pursuant to Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. 5.8 The CD has made the payments against the loan availed till 25.03.2022 and acknowledged the debt till 25.03.2022. Hence, the FC asserts that C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024 the said acknowledgement sets the application herein free from the bar of Limitation as stipulated under Limitation Act, 1963. In support of the same, the FC relied on the following decisions: i. Hon’ble NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.44 of 2017; ii. Hon’ble NCLAT in G.S. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ardee Infrastructure Venture Pvt. Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.388 of 2021. 5.9 The CD had committed serious breach and default in repaying the above loan together with interest due thereon as per the terms and conditions of the sanction and agreements executed in favour of the FC.

Hence, this Application. 6. The Respondent-CD filed its written submissions vide Diary No.5429 dated 19.09.2024 by inter alia contending as under: 6.1 The Financial Creditor claims to have sanctioned an inter-corporate loan of Rs. 2.50 Crores to the Corporate Debtor via a Board Resolution dated 24.08.2011. However, this Resolution improperly references the Companies Act, 2013, and its Rules, which were enacted two years later, raising serious questions about its authenticity. The Resolution inter alia states: “RESOLVED THAT pursuant to the provisions of Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013... the consent of the Board be and is hereby accorded to grant the loan to M/s. Mast Innovative Products Private Limited, up to maximum of Rs.2,50,00,000/-...”, indicating a reliance on provisions which are not in force at that time. This inconsistency suggests that the said Board Resolution is a fabricated document created to support the alleged loan, rendering all related loan documents equally fraudulent and unauthorized. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (Dead by LRs) (1994)

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

1 SCC 1, affirmed that any judgment obtained through fraudulent means is null and void, emphasizing the necessity for parties to come to court with clean hands. 6.2 The Financial Creditor engaged in real estate and infrastructure, is not a Banking Company. It is stated that under Section 372A of the Companies Act 1956, it cannot grant inter-corporate loans exceeding 60% of its paid-up capital and free reserves, or 100% of its free reserves, without a Board recommendation and approval by Special Resolution at a General Meeting. 6.3 It is also stated that the FC’s Paid-up Capital is only Rs. 1,00,070/- as per the MCA Master Data placed at Page 55 of the CP, while the loan to the Corporate Debtor is Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. Further, no Balance Sheet or evidence of higher Paid-up Capital or Free Reserves has been provided for the loan sanction date of 24.08.2011, nor has any Special Resolution been produced by the FC, making the loan ultra vires the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. 6.4 In this regard, CD has relied on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UKG Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Erotic Buildcon Pvt. (2021) SCC Online NCLT 434 wherein it is held that borrowing beyond limits set by the Companies Act, 2013, is an ultra vires act, rendering the loan unenforceable. The Coordinate Bench at NCLT New Delhi echoed this in Jambudwip Exports and Imports Ltd. vs. UP Bone Mills Pvt. Ltd., (IB)- 447(ND)/2021 emphasizing the lack of disclosure in the Balance Sheet and absence of a Special Resolution as per Section 186(3) of Companies Act, 2013. Additionally, NCLT Hyderabad Bench in Enact Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sreeven Infocon Ltd. CP (IB) No.1/7/HDB stated that violations of the Companies Act, 2013 can invalidate debt transactions and the same can certainly be addressed under Section 65 of the IBC, notwithstanding the repercussions under the Companies Act, 2013.

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

In view of the above, it is contended that since the Contract and the Debt is ultra vires it is non-enforceable. 6.5 Additionally, the Financial Creditor has fraudulently claimed a default date of 25.03.2022 before NeSL to manipulate the limitation period for this application. The actual due date for payment, as per the Board Resolution dated 24.08.2011, was on or before 30.06.2012. Also, the FC provided a false email address (mipl@miplglobal.com) for the Corporate Debtor, whereas the correct email of CD is mipl@mast.co.in, as confirmed by the MCA report at Page 57 of CP. This misinformation led to bounced notices from the Information Utility, making the "Deemed to be authenticated" status erroneous. Therefore, the NeSL report dated 29.01.2024 cannot be relied upon due to the fraudulent information submitted by the FC. Moreover, the NeSL report on Page 232 explicitly states that there is no Acknowledgment of Debt (AOD). 6.6 Furthermore, the CD has been defunct since 2016, with no business activities, employees, or premises, as per MCA records. It has not filed the Balance Sheet or conducted any Annual General Meetings (AGMs) since that year, and thus unable to comply with Section 96 of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates annual AGMs for all companies except one-person companies. The CD’s lack of compliance is because it has no assets or ongoing business. The FC is aware of these circumstances but has chosen to file this application with the ulterior motive of pursuing personal guarantors, leveraging the limitations arising from this CIRP. The FC knows that neither a resolution nor liquidation is feasible for the defunct Corporate Debtor. 6.7 The Loan Documents submitted by the FC, alleged to be executed in Bengaluru and included as Annexure 2 (Pages 59 to 72), are not stamped as required under the Karnataka Stamp Act. Section 34 of the Act states that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence unless duly stamped. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.N.

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 379 emphasized that authorities must verify the stamping of instruments presented to them, declaring that the inadmissibility of unstamped documents is absolute, even for collateral purposes. Therefore, since the Loan Agreements lack stamp duty, they are inadmissible, and the application relying on these documents is thus liable to be rejected. 6.8 The alleged sanction letter, or Board Resolution dated 24.08.2011 (Page 196 of CP), claims that the Board of Directors of the FC sanctioned a loan facility at 12% interest per annum. An unstamped Loan Agreement dated 29.12.2011 (Page 59 of CP) supports this sanction. However, the FC also produced an unstamped addendum, supposedly executed on 30.12.2011 (Page 68 of CP), which raises the interest rate to 24% p.a. without the CD’s consent. This addendum is not executed by the CD, and there is no accompanying Board or Special Resolution to justify this increase in the interest rate, and thus violated legal requirements. Furthermore, the parties executing the main document must also be parties to the addendum, which has not been met. Therefore, these documents cannot support the FC’s claim, as they are ultra vires and lack necessary resolutions under Section 372A of the Companies Act. The CD disputes the claimed amounts, arguing that they are based on the fraudulent interest rate of 24% and that the FC has not credited cash payments received for interest made by the CD in accordance with their request. 6.9 It is further averred that the Ultra Vires credit facility was granted on 29.12.2011, with a payment due date of 30.06.2012. The FC has not demanded payment from the defunct CD, which has been inactive since 2016. This inaction, coupled with the current application for insolvency in 2024, reveals the malafide intention of FC to liquidate the CD and target the erstwhile Directors who provided personal guarantees. The C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

FC has confirmed and acknowledged that Demand Notice has not been sent to the CD, as stated in Page 240 of the Application. 6.10 In view of the above, it prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal can initiate action against the FC u/s 65 of the Code for fraudulently initiating an insolvency process against a defunct company and for submitting misleading documents. The Hon’ble NCLAT in Hytone Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satabadi Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (2021) SCC Online NCLAT 598 affirmed that if a petition is not intended for genuine insolvency, it need not be admitted, regardless of compliance with Section 7. Consequently, this application should be dismissed. 7. The Financial Creditor filed its written submissions vide Diary No.5458 dated 20.09.2024 by inter alia further stating as under: 7.1 The Statement of Accounts on Page 180 of the Petition clearly shows that the FC disbursed the loan, and the CD made regular payments, which have not been contested. The Ledger statements on Page 182 further support this, detailing the loan and the CD's acknowledgment of the debt through consistent payments. The Loan Agreement on Page 59 formalizes the loan terms, for which the CD has not contested regarding its execution. Further, their admissions of making interest payments reinforce the loan's existence. Additionally, the Corporate Debtor's deduction and payment of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on the interest paid to the Financial Creditor further confirm their acknowledgment of the debt, as TDS deduction signifies recognition of repayment obligations. 7.2 It is stated that the CD's claim of limitation is unfounded since the Statement of Accounts on Page 180 indicates that the CD made annual payments on the loan, which, as per the Limitation Act, 1963, extends the limitation period. The last payment was made in 2022, and since this petition was filed shortly thereafter, it was within the timeframe. In support of the same, the FC relied on the decision of the Hon’ble

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

Supreme Court in Bengal Silk Mills Co. vs. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff (AIR 1962 SC 589), wherein it was held that part payments extend the limitation period under Section 19 of Limitation Act, 1963. Similarly, in Hussan Kadri vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd (2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1077), the Hon’ble NCLAT affirmed that payments made by a debtor before the expiration of the limitation period extend it from the payment date. 7.3 The CD failed to file its statement of objection despite granting sufficient time, therefore, the allegations in the petition remain uncontested and should be treated as admitted. Any new facts introduced without prior pleadings cannot be relied upon. In Gulab Babalal Ugare vs. Husainalli Dastgir Ugare (2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1567), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court emphasized that evidence must be based on proper pleadings, which provide necessary notice to the opposing party. This principle is further supported by Ram Sarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College (1987) 2 SCC 555, stating that evidence without pleadings cannot be considered, and parties cannot exceed their pleadings. 7.4 It is averred that the allegation of fraudulent documentation regarding the Board Resolution dated 24.08.2011 is unfounded, as no Resolution was required under the Companies Act, 1956, as per Section 372A. The reference to the Companies Act, 2013, was a typographical error by the Company Secretary, who inadvertently noted the Resolution according to new Secretarial Standards after the Act's implementation. Also, the CD’s claim that the loan was ultra vires under Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956, is incorrect as the Private companies are exempt from this Section and thus no special resolution or shareholder approval was necessary for the inter-corporate loan, as outlined in Section 372A(8). 7.5 Further, the CD’s claim that the FC provided a false email ID to NeSL is denied, as the email ID was based on the available records. Moreover,

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024 the discrepancy does not affect the debt's validity. The assertion that default occurred in 2012 is irrelevant, as the limitation period restarts with acknowledgment of debt in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Additionally, emails were sent to mipl@mast.co.in, which the CD has admitted is correct, as evidenced on Page 235 of the petition. As regards the contention of unstamped loan documents, it is settled law that unstamped or under-stamped agreements can be used as secondary evidence. The CD's admission of loan agreement’s execution, alongside payment records, supports its validity and aligns with the loan terms and addendum. The CD’s claim of an interest rate increase from 12% to 24% p.a. is denied since it was mutually agreed upon, and the CD's failure to object at that time implies consent. 7.6 In support of its submissions, FC relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407 which ruled that a default alone triggers CIRP u/s 7 of the IBC, allowing debt disputes to be addressed during the CIRP.

In Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) SCC OnLine SC 73, the Court emphasized that technicalities like stamping should not obstruct the resolution objectives. 8. Heard Shri Mahaveer Jain, Ld. PCS appearing for the Petitioner and Smt. P. Chithra Nirmala, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the pleadings on record. 9. The records indicate that the Corporate Debtor obtained a short-term loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs Only) from the Financial Creditor for a period of six months, maturing on 30.06.2012, with an interest rate of 12% per annum. The Directors, Shri Mahendra Kumar S. and Shri Sokalchand P., have guaranteed the repayment. A Loan cum Guarantee Agreement was executed on 29.12.2011 between the Financial Creditor, Corporate Debtor, and the Guarantors. An Addendum to this Agreement was executed on 30.12.2011, revising the interest rate to 24% per annum. The C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024 total loan amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was documented in the Loan cum Guarantee Agreement, with the Corporate Debtor acknowledging the receipt of the funds.

10. The Corporate Debtor has raised various technical objections. One such objection is regarding the Companies Act, 2013 having been mentioned in place of Companies Act, 1956, which is merely a typographical error. Further, the contention that there is a violation of Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956 has been explained by the Petitioner that as per this Section Private Companies are exempt; and thus no such Special Resolution or Shareholder approval was necessary for the loan. It is further stated that the Financial Creditor has wrongly claimed the default date of 25.03.2022 before the NeSL whereas the actual due date of payment was 30.06.2012 in accordance with the Loan Agreement. However, this point is not material since the Petitioner has explained the satisfaction of limitation in accordance with the periodical part payments of the debt by the Corporate Debtor as discussed subsequently. They have also raised the issue regarding non-stamping of loan documents as per the Karnataka Stamp Act and increase in the interest rate without the consent of the Corporate Debtor. However, the issue regarding the non-stamping of loan documents is not relevant for the purposes of admission under Section 7 of the Code.

As regards the increase in interest rate, it is noticed that this Addendum to the Loan Agreement dated 30.12.2011 has also been duly signed by the Borrower. Therefore, this objection is also rejected. In so far as the objection regarding issue of Demand Notice is concerned, it is explained that the Demand Notice is not a statutory requirement in accordance with the provision of Section 7 of the IBC, 2016. 11. Coming to the issue of limitation, though the due date as per the Agreement was 30.06.2012, the Corporate Debtor has been making part payment towards the loan and the copy of the relevant Account has been furnished with the CP at pages 180 and 181, from which, it is noticed that there was a part payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in June 2015, which is within three years of C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024 the due date, thus extending the limitation up to June 2018. Further, part payments of Rs. 5,00,000/- each was made in February 2018 and March 2019 and also subsequently another payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- was made in April 2021. In this context, we refer to Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that when part payment is made before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation by the person liable to pay the debt, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made.

Therefore, since the Petition was filed on 19.01.2024, it is within the limitation period. 12. It is evident from the above that the Corporate Debtor utilized credit facilities from the Financial Creditor and agreed to repay the loan with interest, and thus qualifies as ‘financial debt’ under Section 5(8) of the Code, reflecting the time value of money. The Financial Creditor pointed out that the Corporate Debtor has not contested the Statement of Account provided in the Petition, which shows a final payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in March 2022, with total remittances amounting to Rs. 1,51,50,000/-. 13. It is further noticed that in accordance with the Statement of Account at page 180 onwards shows that out of the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,29,56,000/- , an amount of Rs. 1,51,50,000/- has been paid in instalments up to March 2022. In the written submissions filed vide Diary No.5249 dated 19.09.2024, it is noticed at para 18 that the Corporate Debtor has merely disputed the amount claimed by the Financial Creditor based on the interest rate of 24%; and objected to not having been given credit of the payment made in cash.

Therefore, they have indirectly admitted the debt and objecting to the interest rate of 24% is not material in this regard since the Addendum dated 30.12.2021 was also duly singed by the Corporate Debtor. Even after the part payment of Rs. 1,51,50,000/- made on various dates are considered, which is given in the Statement filed at page 180 of the CP, the threshold requirement of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) is met.

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

14. The Corporate Debtor has failed to make subsequent payments, constituting a default under Sections 3(11) and 3(12) of the I&B Code, 2016. The Financial Creditor has provided a Record of Default in Form-D from NeSL ( the Petition), indicating a default date of 25.03.2022, with the status marked as ‘Deemed to be Authenticated.’ Thus, the conditions of Section 7 of the Code are met, affirming the legitimacy of the financial transaction and debt and the default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the instant Petition is liable to be admitted. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the present Petition being complete and having established the default in payment of the financial debt and for the default amount being above Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only), the Petition is admitted in respect of the Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. Mast Innovative Products Private Limited under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016. Accordingly, moratorium is declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code. As a necessary consequence of the moratorium in terms of Section 14, the following prohibitions are imposed: i. 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; ii. transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing off by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; iii. 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 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2022); iv. the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024

It is further directed that the supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period. The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall not apply to such transactions, agreements or other arrangement as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority, and to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a Corporate Debtor. 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, as the case may be.

16. The Financial Creditor in Part-III of Form-1 has proposed Mr. Addanki Haresh, a qualified Insolvency Professional as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor. Written Consent of the said IRP in Form-2 dated 07.12.2023 along with Affidavit dated 07.12.2023 is placed on record, wherein, the IRP inter alia affirmed that he is eligible to be appointed as IRP in the case of Corporate Debtor and certified that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him with the Board or ICAI Insolvency Professional Agency. Copy of Authorisation for Assignment issued to IRP in Form-B has been placed on record at Page 34 of the Petition which shows the validity up to 24.12.2024.

17. In view of the above, the Bench hereby appoints Mr. Addanki Haresh, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01064/2017-18/11757 having Office at #36/1, 2nd Floor, Munivenkatappa Complex, Bellary Road, Ganganagar, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560032 having Mobile: +91-9886034643, Email: addanki.haresh@gmail.com as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024 the Corporate Debtor. The IRP is directed to take the steps as mandated under Sections 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of IBC, 2016.

18. The Financial Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with the IRP to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. These expenses are subject to approval by the Committee of Creditors.

19. The Interim Resolution Professional shall after collation of all the claims received against the Corporate Debtor and the determination of the financial position of the Corporate Debtor constitute a Committee of Creditors and shall file a report, certifying constitution of the Committee to this Adjudicating Authority on or before the expiry of thirty days from the date of his appointment, and shall convene first meeting of the Committee within seven days for filing the report of Constitution of the Committee. The Interim Resolution Professional is further directed to send regular progress reports to this Adjudicating Authority every fortnight. 20. A copy of the order shall be communicated to both the Parties. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner shall deliver a copy of this Order to the Interim Resolution Professional forthwith. The Registry is also directed to send a copy of this Order to the Interim Resolution Professional at his e-mail address forthwith.

Sd/- Sd/- MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY K. BISWAL MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) jsr

C.P. (IB) No.35/BB/2024