In the matter of Richfield Industries Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH (COURT– II) Item No. 201 IB-583/ND/2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Central Bank of India … Applicant/Petitioner Versus Richfield Industries Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent Under Section: 7 of IBC, 2016 Order delivered on 20.12.2024 CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ SH. SUBRATA KUMAR DASH HON’BLE MEMBER (J) HON’BLE MEMBER (T) PRESENT: For the Applicant : For the Respondent : For the CD : Adv. Manohar Malik, Adv. Astha Gumber Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode ORDER The captioned petition has been preferred by the Central Bank of India for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process qua Richfield Industries Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Respondent before us. The particulars of the amount of the debt and default are given in Part-IV of the application, which reads thus:

SATYA PRAKASH/HETASH KUMAR

2. The particulars of the IP proposed by the Financial Creditor are given in Part-III of the application which reads thus:

3. The consent of Mr. Vikram Bajaj, IP, has been placed on record at page no. 124 of the paper book. As can be seen from Clause-4 mentioned in the Consent Form, the IP has certified that no disciplinary proceeding is pending before this Tribunal.

4. As can be seen from the statement of account qua Rangoli International Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the Principal Debtor, the amount of debt was disbursed to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor had drawn the amount from the CCL account. The relevant excerpt of the entries in bankers books reads thus:

SATYA PRAKASH/HETASH KUMAR

SATYA PRAKASH/HETASH KUMAR

5. The account of Principal Debtor was declared as NPA on 01.04.2015, but the Principal Debtor could repay part of amount of debt on 23.06.2023, in implementation of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The relevant excerpt of the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by DRT-2, Delhi in OA No. 1005/2016 reads thus:-

SATYA PRAKASH/HETASH KUMAR

6. A recovery certificate was issued on 21.03.2020 i.e. after the aforementioned order could be passed by DRT. Indubitably, the Corporate Debtor before us stood as Corporate Guarantor qua the Principal Debtor. As ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Pat Surana, the Corporate Guarantor is also equally responsible for default committed in the SATYA PRAKASH/HETASH KUMAR repayment of the Financial Facility. In the said judgment, it was also be ruled that the acknowledgment of debt by the Principal Debtor would amount to an acknowledgment of same, given by the Corporate Guarantor. During the course of hearing, Ms. Ashtha Gumber, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Corporate Debtor, conceded to the plea raised in the petition and submitted that the Corporate Guarantor (debtor) also desire that, in the interest of resolution of its insolvency at the earliest, the present petition may be admitted and CIRP may be ordered to commenced.

7. In view of the aforementioned, we are left with no option but to admit the present application. Ordered accordingly. In the wake, moratorium provided under Section 14 of IBC, 2016 is declared qua the CD and as a necessary consequence thereof the following prohibitions are imposed, which must be followed by all and sundry: (a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Respondent 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 Respondent 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 Respondent in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization 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 Respondent.

8. As proposed by the Petitioner, Mr. Vikram Bajaj, having Registration IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00003/2016-17/10003 is appointed as IRP, subject to the condition that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against him and disclosures as required under IBBI Regulations, 2016 are made by him within a period of one week from this Order. It is further ordered that:

SATYA PRAKASH/HETASH KUMAR “Mr. Vikram Bajaj, shall take charge of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor with immediate effect and would take steps as mandated under the IBC specifically under Section 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of IBC, 2016 read with extend provisions of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.”

9. The Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- only with the IRP to meet the immediate expenses. The amount, however, will be subject to adjustment by the Committee of Creditors as accounted for by Interim Resolution Professional and shall be paid back to the Financial Creditor. 10. A copy of this Order shall immediately be communicated by the Registry/Court Officer of this Tribunal to the Petitioner /Financial Creditor, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor and the IRP mentioned above.

11. In addition, a copy of this Order shall also be forwarded by the Registry/Court Officer of this Tribunal to the IBBI for their records.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUBRATA KUMAR DASH) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

SATYA PRAKASH/HETASH KUMAR