In the matter of SATYA IRON & STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH cP (IBl No. 53/CBl2o24 An Application filed under Section 10 of the Insoluency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 7 of the Insoluency and Bankruptcy (Applicatioru to Adjudicating Authoritg ) Rules, 2 0 1 6. In the matter of: SATYA IRON & STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED Through its Authortzed Signatory cum Representative Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh 252, Parthiv Pacific, Tatibandh Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492OOl ....... Corporate Applicant AND IA (IBl No. 3/CB/2025 An Application Under Section 60(5) Of the Insoluency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 R/W Rule 11 Of NCLT Rules, 2016 In the matter oft SATYA IRON & STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED Through its Authorized Signatory cum Representative Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh 252, Parthiv Pacific, Tatibandh 492OOl Raipur, Chhattisgarh- .......Corporate Applicant AND IA (IBl No. 21lCB/2o25 An Application Under Section 60(5) Of the Insoluency and Bankruptcg Code, 2016 R/W Section 65 of IBC, 20L6 In the matter of: BANK OF BARODA, (Represented through Chief Manager & Authorised Officer Bhilai Branch) Having its office at Indira Palace Civic Centre Bhilai,District Durg Chattisgarh-490006 ...SecuredFinancialCreditor/Applicant Vs SATYA IRON & STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED Through its Authortzed Signatory cum Representative Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh 252, Parthiv Pacific, Tatibandh Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492OOl .... Respondent/Corporate Applicant

Ct

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH cP(rBl s3lcBl2o24 rA (rB) 3lcBl2o25 rA (rB) zllCBl2O2s CORAM: DEEP CHANDRA JOSHI, Member (Judicialf BANWARI LAL MEENA, Member (Technicalf Appearance: For Corporate Applicant: Mr. Shimarjit Singh, Advocate Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Kharbanda, Advocate Mr. Raushal Kumar, Advocate For Bank of Baroda: Mr. K.M.H Niamati, Advocate Mrs. Deepika Shukla Date of Pronou_ncementt 02l OS l2024 ORDER 1. CP (lB) No. 53lCBl2O24 (hereinafter 'Main Application') has been filed by Satya Iron & Steels Private Limited (hereinafter'Corporate Applicant/CA) under section 10 of the Insolvency and bankruptcy Code (hereinafter'lBC/Code') read with Rule 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter 'Adjudicating Authority Rules') seeking initiation of CIRP of itself for committing default in repayment of debt to its creditors, 2. The Corporate Applicant was incorporated on 29.08.2006 as a private company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of manufacturing of Lancing Pipes and Rolling Mill. The applicant is an MSME Unit and has a share capital of Rs.10,000,000/- divided into 100000 equity shares of Rs 100/- each fully paid up and its paid-up capital is Rs 9,928,600 divided rnlo 99286 equity shares. The registered office of the corporate applicant is situated at 252, Parthic Pacific, Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492OO1 and the plant is situated at 5-L, heavy Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. Ct

Cd

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH "fl'[fi3i3i"23,! rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 SusnrrssroNs oF rHB ConpoRAtB AppllcaNt IN CP(IBI No. 53/CB/2O24: 3. The submissions made by the Corporate Applicant is summarised hereunder: a. The Corporate applicant's manufacturing unit is situated in the city of Bhiali, Chhattisgarh which is a hub of iron and steel manufacturing units. The CA was having a healthy business and in pursuit of growth and expansion availed credit facilities with high interest cost but since the CA was making substantial profits earned, it was able to repay the debts and also the high interest rates upto FY 2O2l-2O22. b. The Corporate applicant started facing difficulty in running its operations due to shortage of raw materials and in order to continue its business operations, it had to buy raw materials at inflated prices leading to shrinkage of profit. The gradual reduction of profit coupled with high burden of interest of the credit facilities crippled the business of the CA and the CA was forced to shut down its business in March 2024. c. In the FY 2023-24 exhausted its working capital to meet the capital requirements and the inventories were also sold at a loss. Subsequently the CA committed default vide its letter dated 22.O3.2024 tnt.;rnated its sole secured financial creditor i.e, Bank of Baroda (hereinafter "Secured Financial Creditor") regarding its inability to pay its dues. The FC subsequently in light of repeated defaults classified the loan account of the CA as Non- Performing Asset on 19.06.2024 issued demand notice dated 19.06.2024 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act,2002" d. The Corporate applicant as on 01.08.2024 defaulted in payment of Rs.27,72,O4,496.931- to its Financial Creditor and Rs 37,56,43,1981- to all its Operational Creditors. The plant and ed__

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",X'[Ii3i81',ZZZ!, rA (rB) 2LlCBlzO2s machinery of the CA are in working conditions and the business of the CA can be revived with the infusion of fresh funds but in light of the defaults committed there is no anticipation of fresh influx of funds and as a matter of last resort seeks to initiate CIRP in order to revive the business. e. The Corporate Applicant uide two separate special resolutions dated O5.O7.2O24 has approved to take steps to initiate CiRP of the Corporate Applicant and has authorized one Gautam Kumar Singh to file necessary applications in regard to the same. SupMlssroNs or ConpoRAtB AppllceNt uy IA (IBl 3/CB/2O25j 4. The submissions of the corporate applicant in IA (lB) 3/CBl2025 is as follows: a. The Financial Creditor i.e., Bank of Baroda on 21.11.2024 entered appearance in the main Petition and sought time to file their objections/reply to the Application filed by the Applicant under Section 10. But subsequently in a piecemeal manner the FC has already begin to proceed against the applicant by issuing possession letter dated 28.O8.2024 for taking possession of the applicant's assets and properties in furtherance to demand Notice dated 19.06.2024 published in the newspaper - Dainik Bhaskar in the Bhilai edition dated 28.06.2024, demanding an outstanding amount of Rs 28,07,00,000 I -. The financial creditor also proceeded to publish the Possession Notice dated 03.09.2024 in the newspaper - Dainik Bhaskar in the Bhilai edition dated 03.09 .2024. b. Financial Creditor despite entering appearance before this Hon'ble Tribunal in the current matter, is further attempting to frustrate and circumspect the current proceedings by initiating

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCTI ",X'[Ii3i8\',ZZZ! rA (rB) 2LlCB|2O25 another proceedings under Section 14, SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at District-Durg, Chhattisgarh wherein Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an ex-parte order against the Applicant dated 02,12,2024 directing the Naib Tehsildar to take appropriate steps to secure physical possession of secured assets of the Applicant in favour of the financial creditor. The ex parte order was served upon the applicant on 13. 12.2024. In furtherance of the aforesaid order the C has started taking coercive steps and actions against the F Applicant and is also trying to take physical possession of the following assets of the applicant. c. Financial Creditors are seeking leverage of the intervening time before the adjudication of Section 10 application and making an attempt to recover its dues via attachment and auctioning of the properties of the applicant which will not only shut down the applicant's business completely but shall also give huge haircuts for its shareholders including secured and unsecured creditors while making payments to all its other secured and unsecured creditors. d. The Applicant relied on the judgement of Hon'ble NCLAT in NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Put. Ltd. Vs. M/ s" Roxel Trading GMBH (Company Appeal (AT| (Insolvency) No. 664 of 201-9l to show that this Tribunal has adequate power to provide an ex-parte ad interim relief. 5. During the pendency of IA(IB) 3lCB 12025, Bank of Baroda filed another application i.e. IA(IB) 21lCBl2025 with a plea to reject the section 1O application and impose penalty u/s 65 of IBC as the same has been filed by the Corporate Applicant with fraudulent and with intent. malicious 41

Ci

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCII ","]'[ii3i81',ZZZI rA (rB) 2L/cBl2O25 SusMrssroNs nflepB sv BaNx oF'Banona rN IA(IB) 3-lCB/2O25-eNo IA[lEl 2L ICB .i2025; 6, The Submissions made by the Bank in its application in IA(IB) 21 I CB 12025 and reply in IA(IB) 3l CB 12025 are identical in nature and is summarised hereunder: a. The Bank classified the loan account of the Corporate Applicant as a non-performing asset on 18.06.2024 and initiated proceedings under section l3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 bv issuing notice on 19.06.2024 sum aggregating to Rs. 2634.69 lakhs (Rupees Twenty-Six Crore Thirty-Four Lakhs and Sixty- Nine Thousand) along with interest up to the date of payment within sixty days from the receipt of the notice for the default committed by the CD in payment of interest payment of interest on outstanding loans for the quarter ending in March, 2024 and June, 2024 and for default in payment of installments term loan/demand loans which had fallen due for payment on 25.O3.2024. b. It was expressly mentioned in the said notice that on failure of the CD to make the aforementioned payments, the Bank shall be at liberty to exercise ail or any of its rights under Section 13(4) of the SARFAtrSI Act, 2OO2. Subsequently possession notice dated 28.O8.2024 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAtrSl Act,2OO2 was also issued and the symbolic possession was taken and subsequently on 23.72.2024 the actual physical possession of two properties at Bhilai was taken over after getting the order u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. c. The Bank has also initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur vide O.A No. 1360124 for recovery of Rs 2558747751- and the same is pending adjudication. * cd

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH 'fl'fifi3i33',ZZZ! rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 d. The CD chose to initiate a Section 10 proceedings before this Tribunal but no response was received from the CD with respect to the aforementioned demand notice dated 19.06.2024 rather the CD submitted OTS proposals to the Bank with meagre amount after filing an insolvency application uls 10 before this Tribunal e" The Corporate Applicant sent Proposal for settlement of NPA account 05090500000150 dated was received by the Bank on 06.09.2024 and its reply was sent on 1O.O9.2O24" The CA through a letter dated 09.10.2024 offered an OTS for Rs.4.00 Crore (Rupees Four Crore Only) against the total due of Rs. 26"35 Crores (approx.) along with interest up to the date of payment. The same was received by Bank on 23,10.2024 and vide letter dated 24.1O.2024 to the CD on rejected the same. f. The CD via letter dated 1 1.1 1 .2024 again offered to settle the account under OTS Scheme for Rs.6.00 Crore against the total due of Rs. 26.35 Crores (approx.) along with interest up to the date of payment. g. Hence the Company, by way of the said application, intended to take undue advantage of the moratorium period and further stall the recovery proceedings. h. The Corporate Appiicant has made the OTS proposal of Rs. 4 Crores after it has already filed the application under Section 1O of IBC before this Tribunal and furthermore the letter dated 09.10.2024 issued by the did not have any mention that an application u/s 10 IBC has been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal by the Corporate Applicant. i. The Respondent in its letter dated 09 .10.2024 has asstrred "gr the Applicant that their company has been actively engaoino in q

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",X'ruffii3i',232! rA (rB) 2LlCB|2O25 efforts to stabilize its financial position and is in the process of entering into various Memorandums of Understanding ("MoU") with key business establishments which are expected to enhance cash flow into the business. Such representations made by the CD in the letter dated 09.10.2024 are in stark contrast to the averments made by the CA in its application particularly in paragraph 13 of the synopsis to the application j. CA in the main application, has concealed that a criminal complaint bearing no. 447 12024 has been lodged Telibandha Police Station in the district of Raipur by one of the Operational Creditors, against the Managing Director of the Company- Rajesh Sharma and the Director of the Company- Anju Sharma alleging offences committed under Sections 42O, 4O9 and 12OB of the Indian Penal Code for the non-payment of Rs. 1 O,l7 ,OO,797 I - to the Complainant's company in exchange of finished goods supplied by the Complainant's company Sarvamangala Infra build Pvt. Ltd. which has also been named as one of the Operational Creditors of the CD. The Directors of the CD filed applications under Section 482 of BNSS before the Court of the Learned Seventh Sessions Judge, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) seeking anticipatory bail M/s k. The Bank relied on the judgments of Hon'ble NCLAT in M/s Agroha Paper Industrles Priaate Limited u. Bank of Mq.hq.rashtra [Company Appeal (ATf (Insolvencyf No.1342 of 20231 and Waue Megacitg Centre (P) a, Rakesh TaneJa 2o23 SCC Online NCLAT 50

I Page of 19

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH cP(rB) 53lCBl2O24 rA (rB) 3lcBl2o25 rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 Sus-lussroNs -Iu4oB rv rluB CoBFoRATB Appl,tceNr u{ &qlPl{v-ro LA. (IB} 2.1/CBr2O25 ero np-rorupqn.Iu IA (IBl 3/--CBr2O25: 7. The CA in its reply to IA 2l and Rejoinder in IA 3 made the following submissions in addition to the submissions already made in his main application and IA 3: a. Corporate Applicant had suffered huge business losses over the period and the management of the corporate Applicant was eventually constrained to shut down the manufacturing operations in the month of March 2024. Therefore, the corporate Applicant in order to revive the company while protecting and balancing the interest of the stakeholders is approaching the adjudicating authority. b. The Adjudicating Authority in its catena of judgments ha-s reaffirmed the prevalence of IBC over the SARFAESI Act and has reiterated that Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a complete Code in itself, for providing resolution to all the creditors. c. The Bank was well versed with the pendency of the Application under section i0 of IBC in which applicant bank has participated and sought time to file reply but the applicant bank in order to frustrate the steps of resolution, is continuing to take coercive actions under the SARFAtrSI Act and, has illegally and wrongfully proceeded to take the symbolic possession of the property and somehow frustrate the present proceedings. d. No notice was received by the corporate applicant for the hearing before the CJM, Bilaspur and the order dated 02.12.2025 has been obtained by the bank ex-parte beqhind the back of the corporate applicant

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",'J',EIi3i3i"Z3Z2 IA (IB) 2LlCB|2O25 e. OTS of a meagre amount was not given to delay the matter rather despite having suffered huge business loss, in order to show its bonafide to settle its NPA account has submitted the OTS proposal. However, unfortunately and contrary to banking norms the applicant bank refused to even consider the same and corporate Applicant had approached this tribunal only when the corporate respondent suffered unprecedented economic scenario, due to non-operation of business and consequent cash flow deficit, the respondent suffered huge losses in the FY 2023- 24 and its net worth was completely eroded. However, the bank is trying to frustrate and circumspect the present proceeding by initiating proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur vide O.A No. 1360 124 for recovery of Rs 2558747781 -and the same is pending adjudication. f. There is no contradiction between the submission made in the main application and the representation made to the bank, the bank by making selective reference is wrongfully misreading and misconstruing the contents of the letter of corporate applicant dated 09" 10.2024 proposing one time settlement (OTS) and its bonafide acts and is seeking wrongfully prejudice this Hon'ble Tribunal has rejected the proposal of the corporate Applicant while taking leverage of unprecedented economic scenario of the Applicant by initiating multiple proceeding against the respondent in order to circumspect and frustrate the Section 1O application of the respondent for their personal gains which will not only shut down respondent's business completely but shall also give huge haircuts to other creditors g, The bank has wrongfully made reference to the said criminal proceedings, despite being well aware of the fact that the same are completely frivolous and have no bearing on the present proceedings. The applicant bank has further wronqfitllv C-I

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",'l'[fi3i33",";! rA (rB) 2LlCB|2O25 and falsely stated that the anticipatory bail has not been granted and application for the anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Ld. Session Judge, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur was pleased allow the anticipatory bail application of both the Directors vide order dated 04.O9.2024 h. The Corporate Applicant relied on the judgments of Getz Co.bles Put. Ltd. Vs. Stqte Bo.nk of India & Ann [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1953 of 201241, Unigreen Global Put" Ltd. yS. Puniab Nqtional Bank & Ors" [CA (AT) (INS. 8L l2OtT ll and Amar Vorq Vs Citg Union Bank Ltd. l2o22l SCC Online NCLAT 276 in support of its submissions EIT-DIII_qS-M 8. We have heard the counsels of both sides and also perused the materiais on record" It is undisputed that the Bank declared the loan account of the corporate applicant as NPA on 18.06.2024 and had served notice u/s l3(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 on 79.06'2024. Subsequently on 28.O8.2024 possession notice was issued u/s 13(a) of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. 9. It is an established principle of law formed through catena of judgements that an application u/ s 10 of IBC shall be admitted if there exists debt, default and the application is complete and the applicant is not ineligible under section 1 1 of IBC. It is noted that the applicant has given details of B (Eight) Financial Creditors and 62 (Sixty-Two) Operational Creditors in Part III of the application in F orm -6. The total outstanding due has been stated to be Rs. 64,68,47,6941- (Sixty-Four Crores Sixty-Eight Lakhs Forty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Four Rupees). The applicant has given information regarding dates of default and information regarding the outstanding dues to its creditors and has also attached documents annexing the same. The applicant has also provided information regarding the securities created \='l SU

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",I'l'&i3i33',ZZZ1 rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 on its asset in Point 5 of Part III of Form-6. It is noted that upon perusal of the application it is clear that there exist outstanding dues and default has been committed by the corporate applicant. The application is also found to be complete with all necessary information and documents. The application is also within the period of limitation as the oldest default was committed on 23,12,2022 and, this main application has been filed on 1I.O9.2024. 10. But before we decide on the outcome of the main application, it is necessary to adjudicate upon the two Interlocutory applications captioned IA (lB) 3 I CB 12025 ("IA 3") and IA (lB) 21 I CB 12025 ("lA 2L") filed by the CA and the Secured Financial Creditor of the corporate applicant i.e. Bank of Baroda respectively during the pendency of the main application. Both these IAs are inter se same parties and the pleadings are overlapping in nature and hence taken up together. 11. IA (lB) 3lCBl2O25 has been e-filed on 24.12.2024 by the applicant in under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking ex-parte ad-interim stay on the operation and effect of the recovery process, restraining creditor banks and various other Financial Creditors from attaching the property or use any other assets of the Corporate Applicant for the recovery of their dues. t2. The two points that need to be adjudicated before we enter into the merits of the main application are as follows: r Whether submission of OTS proposals after filing of the section 10 application will attract the provision of section 65 of IBC,2016? r Whether the conflicting submissions made by the CA in its main application filed on 1 1 .O9.2024 and OTS pronos,l 'ro+rd eLl

<d Page 12 of '19

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH cP(IBf 53lCB|2O24 rA (rB) 3lcBl2025 IA (tB) 2tlCBl2O25 09.10.2024 made to the bank makes the main application hit by section 65 of IBC,2016? 13" Section 65 of IBC, 2016 empowers this court to impose penalty on an applicant who initiates any application before this court with fraudulent or malicious intention, which is as follows: Section 65: ?raudulent or mq.llcious inltlatlon of Il proceedlngs, (1) anA person initiates the insoluencA resolution process or liquidation proceedings fraudulentlg or with malicious intent for anA purpose ottw than for the resolution of insoluencg, or liquidation, os the case may be, the Adjudicating Authority mag impose upon such person a penaltg which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but may extend to one crore rupees. (2) Il anA personinitiates uoluntary liquidation proceedings withthe intent to defraud ang person, the Adjudicating Authority may impose upon such person a penaltg uthich shall not be less than one lakh rupees but may extend to one crore rupees. (3) If dnA person initiates the pre-packaged insoluency resolution process- (a) fraudulentlg or with malicious intent for any purpose other than for the resolution of insoluencg; or (b) with the intent to defraud ang person, the Adjudicating Authoritg may impose upon such person a penalty whiclt shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but may extend to one crore rupees,l t4. The essential ingredients which are required to be proved under Section 65, sub-section (1) is that proceedings are initiated fraudulently with malicious intent for any purpose other than for the resolution of insolvency. Hon'ble NCLAT in Getz Cqbles Put. Ltd, Vs. Stqte Bank India & Anr. Appeal (ATl (Insolvencyf No. 1953 of o.;t [Company 20241 relied on para 32,33 and 34 its earlier judgment in sMBc e, _G\

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",X'[fi3i33',232!, rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 Aviqtion us Resolution Professlonal, Go Airllnes [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No" 593 of 2o231to explain the meaning of fraud in the context of Section 65 of the Code. As per SIWBC (Supra) the two elements to constitute fraud are deceit and injury and loss to some person. 15. In West Bengal State Electrtcitg Board us Dlltp Ytumar RaU, Civil Appeal 5188 of 2OO6. the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the term 'malicious'. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow: "Malice medns in law wrongful intention. It includes anA intent which the law deems wrongful, and which therefore serues as d ground of liability. AnA act done with such an intent is, in the language of the law, malicious and this legal usage has etgmologg in its fauoun The Lain militia means badruess, phgsical or moral - wickedness fn disposition or in conduct - not specifically or exclusiuely ill-utill or maleuolence; hence the malice of Englistt law, including all forms of euil purpose, design, intent, or motiue. But intent is of two kinds, being either immediate or ulterior, the ulterior intent being commonly distinguished as the motiue, The term malice is apptied in law to both these forms of intent, and. tLr.e result is a somewhat puzzling ambiguitg which requires careful notice. When ue sag that an act ls done mallclouslg, we mean one of the two dtstlnct thtngs, We mean elther that it is done lntentlonallg, or that it ts done wtth some wrongful motloe." (Dmphasis Supplted) 16. In Getz Cqbles Put, Ltd. (Supro,) the Hon'ble NCLAT has categorically held the following in Para 30 of the judgement: 30, Tlrc facts which come out in M/ s Agroha Paper Industnes Put. Ltd, contained suJficient material to come to the conclusion that CD was trying to embroil the Bank in multiple layers of litigation arud ttrc application uruder Section 10 was filed ulittt the uqneleo q Page 14 of {9

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH "fl'[f13i33"232:" rA (rB) 2LlCB|2O25 hands, this fact was taken note by the Adjudicating Authoritg, which orders were confirmed by this Tribunal. Iru the present cese, only basis for filing Section 65 application is that the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 13, sub'section (2) o.f the sARFAESI Act, prior to filing of section 10 application. we ltaue noticed the iudgment of this Tibunal taking tlrc uiew that iruitiation of proceedings under Section 13, sub-section (2) of Act, ls not a ground to the SARFAESI reject Section 1O Application. Section 1O application. can be fouruded on debt arud default, uhich can be proued from releuarut facts in a Company Appeal (AT) (Insoluency) No. 1953 of 2024 28 particular case. Proceedings initiated against Corporate Debtor under Section 13, sub-section (2) or application uruder Section 19 of the Debt Recouery Tribunal Act, 7993 can also be incideruts to proue debt and default. The present is a case uthere Adjudicating Authoritg lms alloued Section 65 application filed by the SBI principally based on the foundatioru of the SBI that Section 10 application filed at the time wheru proceedirugs under Section 13, sub-section (2) Luere on the uerge of completion, Wlrcther Section 10 application deserue to be admitted or not, is a decisioru, tuhichhas to be takert by tlrc Adjudicating Authonty on facts of each case, L7. Upon perusal of the judgments above, it is an established principle of law that the pendency of proceedings under SARFAESI per se won't vitiate an application under section 10. Further it cannot be held that the submission of OTS proposal to the bank after filing of section 1O application is sufficient to infer that the section 1O application was filed with fraudulent and malicious intent. The Corporate applicant has admitted the fact that he has committed default and is not in a position to repay the dues and his endeavors, both before this tribunal and before the bank is to res..lve his insolvency.

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",i'r,|rui31',ZBZT rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 18. In regard to the submission rnade by the bank that contradictory submissions are made by the Corporate Applicant in its main application filed on 1 1.09 .2024 and the OTS proposal dated 09.10.2024, whtch was issued subsequent to filing of the section 10, it is noted that the Bank has responded to the OTS proposal dated 09.10.2024 uide its communication dated 24,10,2024. It is a notable fact that the notice of the section 10 application was successfully served upon the Bank through post and email on 15.1o,2024 and 16.1O.2024 and the bank has entered appearance in the main application after receipt of the said notices. Hence the bank cannot say that it was not aware about the section 10 application while scrutinizing the OTS proposal dated 09 .1O.2024. 19. In regard to the submission made by the Bank regarding concealment of the pending criminal proceedings against the directors of the corporate applicant, it is observed that IBC requires the applicant to file a complete application under section in order to get it admitted, upon perusal of Form*6 it is noted that none of the columns of the said form requires the applicant to disclose pending criminal investigations and hence it cannot be said that the corporate applicant has failed to adhere to a duty or has submitted an incomplete application under section 10. Any fact unrelated or beyond the requirement under IBC or Irorms prescribed under the Adjudicating Authority Rules are not required to be stated or pleaded. Unless the fact not disclosed by the applicant is not of such nature which will make an applicant ineligible under section 11, such non-disclosure is not fatal to section 10 application. 2Q.. In view of the foregoing observations, it cannot be held that the main application filed by the Corporate Applicant has been filed fraudulently or with malicious intent as the ingredients required under section 65 is not existent. Furthermore, since it is established beyond doubt that default has been committed and the present apphcqafion is q

NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",'J',[Ii3i33"232! rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 complete as required under section 10 and other accompanying rules and regulations and the corporate applicant is not ineligible under section 1 1. We, therefore, consider it a fit case for admitting the petition, and for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of the Corporate Applicant i.e. Satya Iron and Steel Private Limited 2L. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hereby admit the petition and pass the following Orders: - &. The Petition bearing CP (IB) No. 53lCBl2O224 under Section 10 of the Code read with rule 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Petition to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP of Satya Iron and Steel Prlvate Limited [CIN: U24241 CT2006PTC0200571 is ADMITTED b. The moratorium under section L4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is declared for prohibiting all of the following in terms of section 14(1) of the Code - r The institutioru of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate Applicant including exeantion of any judgment, decree or order iru any court of law, tnbunal, arbitration panel or other authonty; r Trarusferring, erlcumbering, alienating or disposirug of bg the corporate Applicant any of its assefs or anA legal right or beneficial interest therein; r Any action to foreclose, recouer or enforce any security iruterest created by the corporate Applicant iru respect of its property including any action under the Secuitisation arud Recorustructioru of Financial Assets and Enforcemerut of Secunty Interest Act, 2002; r The recouery of any property by an owruer or lessor where such propertg is occupied bA or in the possession of e the corp orate Applicarut.

NCL?, CUTTACK BENCH ",'J',[Il3i3i"732! rA (rB) 2LlCB|2O25 c. It is further directed that: r The supply of essential goods or seruices to the Corporate Applicant as maA be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or intemtpted during the moratorium penod. r TLrc proui.sions of sub sectiln (1) of section 14 of the code shall not apply to such transactiol?s as may be notified by the Cerutral Gouernmerut in consultation utith any firuancial sector regulator. d. As proposed by the applicant Mr. Ashutosh Khemani having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-OO2|\P-NOLL77l2O2L' 20221L39O2 and Email Id: as-h..u-t-o-ph,k-l-rggrApt@Et .a-t1,9-o-m office at 1-C, 3rd Floor, Shyam Plaza, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492OO1 is hereby appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (lRP) of the Corporate Applicant to carry out the functions as per the Code, subject to his possessing a valid Authorisation for Assignment (AFA) in terms of A of the Insolvency and 7 Bankruptcy Board of India (lnsolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016. e. The IRP shall take statutorily prescribed steps inter alia as envisaged under section 15,17,78,19,2O and 21 of the Code.

Further the IRP is directed to submit his report at the earliest to this Tribunal. It is further made clear that all personnel connected with Corporate Applicant, its Promoter or any other person associated with management of the Corporate Applicant 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 Applicant, 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 e4 a NCLT, CUTTACK BENCH ",X'[fi3i3i',232! rA (rB) 2LlCBl2O25 appropriate application to this Adjudicating Authority with a prayer for passing an appropriate order. f. The Corporate Applicant sha1l deposit a sum of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- to the bank account of the IRP within 10 days trom pronouncement of this order. g" The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of CIRP as per sub section (4) of Section 14 of the Code. h. IA(IB) 3lCBl20125 filed by the corporate applicant seeking ex parte ad interim relief is DISPOSED as infructuous in light of the moratorium-imposed u/s 14 of the Code. i. IA(IB) 2LlCBl2O25 filed by Bank of Baroda seeking dismissal of the Main Application and imposition of fine u/s 65 of the code is DISMISSED. j. cP (IBl No.53/CBl2o24 stands ALLOWED and DISPOSED OF.

a BANWARI LAL MEENA DEEP CHANDRA JOSHI Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)