In the matter of The Maharaja Salt Works Company Private Limited

PRESENT: For the Applicant For the Respondent ORDER (Hvbrid Mode) The case is fixed for pronouncement of the order. The order is pronounced in open Court, vide separate sheet.

SAMEER KAKAR MEMBER (TECHNTCAL) MEMBER (JUDtCtAL)

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL _I, DIVTSION BENCH AHMEDABAD

CP(IB)/ 161(AHM,I2O23 along with tf.l L343(AHM)2O23 [An application under Section 7 of the Insoluencg and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read uith Rule 4 of the Insoluency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authoritg) Rules, 20161 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaia Salt Works Company Pvt. Ltd. cP(I_Bl 161(AHMI2O23 ' DCM Shriram Credit & Investment Limited Having its Head Office at: 2"d Floor, World Mark-I, Aerocity, New Delhi- 1 10037 ...Applicant/Financial Creditor VERSUS M/s The Maharaja Salt Works Company Private Limited Having Address at: Lavanpur, Village Bodki, Taluka Maliya Miyana, District Morbi, Gujarat- 363673 ...Respondent/CorPorate Debtor rA/ 1343(AHM}2O23

M/s The Maharaja SaIt Works Company Private Limited Having Address at: Lavanpur, Village Bodki, Taluka Maliya Miyana, District Morbi, Gujarat- 363673 ...Applicant/CD z/ VERSUS cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1 of43

DCM Shriram Credit & Investment Limited Having its Head Office at: 2"d Floor, World Mark-I, Aerocity, New Delhi- 1 10037 ...Respondent/FC Order pronounced on: 13.08.2024 CORAM: SH. SHAMMI KHAN, HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SH. SAMEER KAKAR, HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNTCAL)

Appearance For the Applicant : Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. a.w. Mr. Ravi Pahwa, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Soparkar, Sr. Adv. a.w. Mr. Jaimin Dave, Adv.

ORDER 1. The Present Application was filed on 09.06.2023 by the & Applicant- DCM Shriram Credit Investments Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant/Financial Creditor") against the Respondent- M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd., ('3Respondent/Corporate Guarantor") under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IBC, 2OL6') read with Rule 4 ofthe Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 6'18 (AAA) Rules, 2OL6") pr cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/202s In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2of43 initiation of Corporate Insolvcncy Re solution Process to appoint Interim Resolution Professional (crRP), (hereinafter referred to as "IRP") and declare the moratorium for having defaulted payment of its outstanding dues Rs. 1 1r3OrO3 ,4g81 - including interest. is Part-I of the Form- I reveals that the Applicant a 2. Financia-l Institution which was incorporated on .tgg2. The Applicant is having address at: 2"d Floor, LO.O7 World Mark-I, Aerocity, New Delhi-110037' .'l It is submitted that the present application has been filed J. by Mr. B.K. Khurana, being the Autltortzed Representative of the Applicant. That Mr. B.K. Khurana is a:uttllorized to sign the documents on behalf of the Applicant in terms of the Board Resolution dated 14.OI.2O2O (at Page 15 of CP)' Part-II of the Form-l states that the Corporate Debtor - 4. M/s. The Maharaja salt works company Pvt. Limited was on 17.08.1943 under CIN: incorporated having its registered office at: u 1 422OG,J 1}43FTCOOO79O, Lavanpur, village Bodki, Taluka Maliya Miyana, District Morbi, Gujarat - 36367 O - .r# cP(rB)/ 61/AHM/2023 ln'the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt'Works Co' Pvt' Ltd' 3of43

5. Part-III of the Form- I reveals that the Applicant has named IP Mr. Sunil Kumar Kabra, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-OO1/IP-PO101 1 /2017-18 / 11662 under section 13 1)(c) of the Code to act as Interim Resolution ( Professional (IRP). A copy of Form-AA is attached as Annexure-C.

6. Part-IV of the F'orm-l indicates, as on OL.O4.2O23, the amount in default is Rs.13,47 ,29,L2l/-(inclusive of interest) till 2I.O3.2023. Further, the Applicant has issued a Ncrtice dated 06.04.2023 to the Corporate Debtor u/s I3(2) of the SARFAtrSI Act. A copy of Notice to the Corporate Debtor u/s L3(2) of the SARFAESI Act is annexed in the petition as Exhibit P.

7. The Applicant has relied upon the following documents: -

Annexure Particulars G Hypothecation Agreement dated 03.03.2020 H Mortgage Deed dated 03.03.2020 I Colly Guarantee Deeds dated 03.03.2020.

J Non-Disposal Underlaking, Promissory Note dated cP(rB)/ 1 61/AHM/2023 .tn the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co, Pvt. Ltd.

03 03.2020. K Long Term Salt Supply Agreement dated 03.03.2020. L Tripartite Agreement dated 03.03.2020. N Recall Notice dated 06.03.2023. o Corrigendum Notice dated 14.03.2023 to Recall Notice dated 06.03.2023. P Notice dated 06.04.2023 issued u/s 13(2) ot SARFAESI Act. 8. It is submittcd by thc Applicant that the present application which is filed on 09.06.2023 is within the period of limitation. 9. In the synopsis filed by thc Applicant along with the Company Pctition it is submitted:- i. The respondent approached Applicant, which is a NBF'C, for assistance in obtaining a Rupee Loan facility to the extent of INR 10,00,00,0OO1- (ltupees Ten Crores only) to the extent of 7Soh of the 1,otal investment in development of the salt works at thcir Versamedi unit and additional loan facilily to the extent of INR 'l,50,00,0OO1- (Rupees One Crore F'ifty Lacs only) lor the purposc of removal of existing charge on their current assets. ii. The Applicant agreed for the said linancial assistance on exccul.ion of Rupee Loan Agree ment as well as other ,r/ cP(rB)/161/AHM/2023 In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

conseqllential agreements such as Flypothecal,ion agreement, Mortgage deed, (]uarantee l)eeds, Non-Disposal Promissory note, etc. Undertaking, iii. Respondent agreed to pay interest on the principal amount and on the additional loan, a1. the interest rate specified in Schedule-l to the l?upee Loart, agreement provided that any interest accrued and rcmaining outstanding on the final repayment date sha1l be paid on thal-date. lV. Respondent vide Tripartite Agreemenl-authorised DCM Shriram Limited to deduct from thc invoices of the material supplicd by the Corporate l)ebtor sum of Rs. 125 per MT and 1,o pay the same to the Applicant towards the loan amount of Rs. l0,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only) and authorised DCM Shriram I.imited 1-o deduct from payment I?s. 25 per metric ton towards the additional loan to the extent of Rs. I ,50,00,0OO l- (Rupee s onc crore fifty lakhs only) and pay to thc Applicant towards the repayment of the loan amount of Rs. .l l,50,00,0OOl- (lRupees eleven crore fifty lakhs only) along with interest. It was agreed that the respondent sha1l pay directly V. @ Rs.125/- per MT and Rs.25/- per MT to the Applicant on each invojcc amount and the DCM Shriram Limited would pay the complcte invoice amount directly to the respondent. vi. The re spondent having agreed 1-o adhere to the Supply Agrcemcnt as wcll as thc Repayment Schedule, the Applicant cP(rB)/ 161/AH M/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. 6of43 advanced a total loan of lls. I 1,30,03,4981- on different dated as bclow: Date Amount(in Rs.) 1,45,00,000. 21 .O3.2020 1,0o,00,000 02.o4.2020 65,71,000 07 .o4.2020 1,13,00,000. 16.O5.2020 1,62,00,000. 06.07.2020 78,39,068. o1.10.2020 68,81,250. 20.70.2020 56,27,975. 01 .01 .2021 46,95,379 05.202t 3o,oo,oo0. 20.o4.202r 40,00,000. 22.O4.2021 3O,00,000. 25.O5.2021 50,00,000. 10.01 .2022 30,37,000. 18.01.2022 5,56,000 21 .O3.2022 5,42,OOO 13.o4.2022 16,61,680 26.O4 .2022 23,OO,L75 1o.o5.2022 cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7of43

24,61,650 27.O5.2022 2l ,22,glg 17.06.2022 16,57,563 18.O7.2022 11,3O,O3,499 Total vl1. As per payment schedule, the first instalment was due by respondent to Applicant on 30.9.2O2O and thereafter, the respondent. was to make payment of Rs. 43,87,5OO by 31 .3.202r. viii. Ilowevcr, the respondent failed to supply the contracted quantity to DCM Shriram Limited which resulted in the dcfault in the payment as per the Schedule. As against the suppiy <>f 2 Lakh MT per year till today, respondent hardly supplied 30,831 MT over: a period lrom April 2O2O to 31st May 2023 to I)CM Shriram Limited and only a payment of IRs. 9,35,O00/- (Rs. 4,4O,OOO towards principal and Rs. 4,95,000 towards interest) have been made as against the repayment schedule and apart from that no other payment was made by the Corporate l)ebtor. ix. The Applicant raised demand from the respondenl.. x. As per thc casc of respondent, respondent had a meeting with DCM Shriram l.imited and requested them to take the burden of intcrcst to the extent of Rs.2.22 crores upon themselves av cP(rB)/ 16.1/AHM/2023 tn the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. Bof43 which according to them they have agreed subject to terms and conditions as incorporated in the said minutes. xl.

Flowever, the respondent failed to fulfil its obligations agreed to in the said Minutes. I'Ience, the minutes dated 31.7.2021 lost its significance. xii. It is stated tha1. there is a financial debt and the Corporate I)ebtor has committed a default in respect of that-financial debt. is lurther submitl-ed that the default has occurred on 11. 1.4.2O21 and has continued thereafter, despite revision in rcpaymcnt schedule, thc Corporate Debtor failed to refund 1-he amount as stipulated therein. xiii. It is submitted by the Applicanl. 1.hat the Applicant lastly issued Recall Notice da1-ed 6.3.2023 and thereafter, Corr:igendum Notice dated 14.3.2023 to Recall Notice dated 6.3.2023 to the respondent. 10. To this the rcspondcnt tilcd a reply on 17.1O.2O23 vide Inward Diary dated D4O97. The brief contentions of the jn Rcspondcnt rcply are as under:- i. The l,'irst contention of the Ilespondent is that an Arbitration I)roceeding is pending between the Applicant and the Respondent at the Arbitration Tribunal Delhi. There are OMPs filcd i.c. O.MP. No. 90/2023 and O.M.P(COM)105/2023 before the llon'ble High Court and vide order dated 14.04.2023 IIon'blc Delhi II.C. records tha1. the dispute so raised in the cP(rB)/ 61/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

said O.M.P are arbitrable in nature. vide order dated 22.O3.2023 Flon'ble Delhi t{.C. appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the alleged claims of DCM Shriram Ltd. The nature of transaction being composite and arbitral in nature and ti1l the f.ime the same is not adjudicated as under the arbitration Tribunal the application made under 7 is needed to bc rejected. That the Applicant is not a Financial Creditor. It is submitted 1.hat the Applicant does not lall within the definition of Financial Creditor as defined u/s 5(7) of the code because of two reasons: a) The transaction entered between the parties herein is not in the nature of 'financial debt' as dclined under section 5(8) of the code and b) the Applicant having breached the contract between thc parties, is disentitled from claiming any relief before thc Flon'ble Tribunal. Tha1. l.here is no consideration for the time vaiue of money. It 111. is submitted that 1.hat the joint reading of the Agreement for Supply of Inclustrial Grade Salt, Tentative Supply and Repayment Schedulc to the Loan Agreement (which was revise d from time to time on 26.O3.2021, 3 1 .O7 .2027, 17 .1 1 .2021, 23.12.2021 and 17 .O2.2022 considering the grouncl situation and technical and the Tripartite Agreement (Clausc No.3) it can be said that there is no fixed period for cP(rB)/161/AHM/2023 .tn the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

repayment ol loan or cdmpletion of supply agreement which are tentative in nature and resuh-ing in extending the period of supply thereby the repayment being tentative in nature This leads tr> the conclusion that the nature of transaction has.no relevance as regard to time value of money. iv. That there is absence of any debt and restricl.ing of arrangement. It is submitted that there is no debt against the presenl. alleged Corporatc Debtor which is contrary to the submissions of the Applicanl., the inter alia, the alleged CORPORATID DITIITOR has to make recovery of Rs. 30.66 cr from the present Applicant and I?s 21.75 cr counter claim against DCM Shriram ltd. That the order passed in No. O. M. P. (l) (COMM.) 90l 2023, it is crystal clear tha1. the agreement signed between Applicant and the Respondent and DCM Shriram Ltd is still in existence, therefore Applicant herein cannot rccall the said loan agreement signed between Applicant and respondent. V. Tha1. l,hcre is breach of Rupee Loan Agreement by Applicant for I)isbursal of the amount. It is submitted that the petition has been filed by the Applicant to takeover the land of the Rcplying Respondcnt by fraudulently initiating CIRP against it. I say that the company pctition is nothing but a dishonest attempt by the Applicant at the behest of its holding company i.c. I)CM shriram ltd to dcfer its liability and its duties specificd in the various agreements executed between the l/ cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. .11 of 43

Applicant, Respondent and DCM Shriram Itd and hence need to rejected at its as section 7 ol II3C no such application is mainl.ainable under the ground of default of Applicant for disbursement of loan as pcr the schedule II ol the rupee loan. vi. Tha1. thcre is fraud by DCM Shriram L1.d. and Applicant in Colla1.ion. It is submitted that as per section 65 of the IBC action need to be take on the persons / company who initiates 1.he CIRI) with fraudulent or malicious intent. by dismissing the application made under section 7 application and by imposing 1-he penalty for such offence as defined in above section since it is clear that Respondent along with its sister concern I)CM Shriram Itd has played fraud on the Replying Respondent and entanglc into the entering into conl.racts and allegedly create a default and then trying to take over the unit no 2 situated at vesramedi ol the Replying Respondent and playcd fraud by changing the content of Annexure D of supply agreemenl. vii. Tha1. l-here is illegal act of threating and manhandling and dcpositing of blank dated chcques l.hough nothing is due and sending illegal recall notice which bad in 1aw. viii. Thal- IJreach of Rule 4(3) of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authorit.y) Rules, 2016.'lhe Respondent further states that the application filed by the Applicant is against the rules and regulations under the Insoivency Code and the NCI-T rulcs. The Respondent states that the Applicant has ,/Z-- V. :P(rB)/161/AHM/2023 - l/ In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

served a copy of the application before filing it_ with the registry of the Flon'ble Tribunal whereas as per the mandatory rules, the Respondent ought to supply that copy to the Applicant which is filed with thc IIon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, service olthe annlir-etinn filed h'rr fhe Annlir-qnf hae tn hc dnnc after filing the same with Hon'ble Tribunai and not before filing of the application. That as per llule 4(3) of the 1 & (Applicat.ion to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the Applicant shall dispatch forthwith, a copy of the application filed with the Adjudicating Authoril-y, by registered post or specd post to the registered office of the alleged corporal-e deb1.or. Therefore, instead of serving the filed copy of the app1ica1.ion, the Applicant has scrved a copy of thc application beforc filing it which is in breach of Rule 4(3). ix. Tha1. collusion with l)CM Shriram Ltd. under composite Agreemcnt. It is submitted that the en1-ire arrangement with the lteplying l?cspondent was to entangle the Replying Rcspondcnt by Applicant and its sister concern DCM Shriram Itd sincc they have acted in collusion and hand in glove to Llsurp the unit of the Replying lRespondent by allegedly creating dcfault like scenarjo and then making an application undcr CTRI) to the your honourable tribunal to take over the unit under alleged default by the Replying Respondent the abovc can the stated for the folJowing reasons: q// cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. 13of43 a- 11. is submitted that the collusiveness of the aforesaid Loan agreement can bc seen by Recall Letter dated 06.O3.2023 by Applicant to Replying Respondent and letter dated 06.03.2023 written by the Applicant to I)CM Shriram ltd thereby clandestinely prompting it to take over the plant no 2 of Versamedi Unit of this Replying Rcspondenl. is also writ large from the fact that on the very nex1. day r.e., 07.O3.2O23 (Document No.43 to the said l,OD), vide a I-etter by DCM Shriram Itd t'o I?eplying Respondenl. calling for an Arbil.ration claiming 49 Cr Approx as damages on account of the alleged claim that due 1_o non-supply of salt by t,his Replying llespondent basis thc quantities mcntioned in the "Tcntative" Supply schcduie and not as per the Actual Purchase Orders issued by the DCM Shriram Itd <>n this Replying Respondenl-. b. 11. is submitted that while Mr. B.K.Khurana is stated to be one of the principlc officers of the Applicanl., it has dcliberately conceale d that he js also one of the principles officer of I)CM Shriram ltd. c. It is submitted that under such a scenario when the arrangement I agreement is under undue influence of collusion between sister concerns and the act done is without any default of the lReplying Respondent and is u/ 4/ cP(rB)/1 61/AHM/2023 tn the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. pvt. Ltd.

done for illegally taking over the unit of the Replying Rcspondenl_ under 7 ol IIIC should be rejected. x. Tha1. out of Limitation & secljon 10 A cannot be used a shelter and alleged date of default. The entire apprication of the Applicant is out of limitation and it is barred by limitation. it is submitted 1.hat Replying l?espondent has stated the date of default as 01.o4.2021 as per his whims and wishes. As per their own admission in the recall notice dated 06.03.2023 paragraph no.l1, the default has occurred from the date of inccption of contract i.e. 03.03.2020 and going by such admission statement by thc Applicant. itself, it becomes crystal clear 1.hat the application is barred by limitation of 3 years from thc date of dcfault.

It is submitted that the present Petition under Section 7 of Insolvency and I3ankruptcy Code, 2016 (her:einafter referred to as the "Code") is not maintainable in view of Section 10A of the Code inserted by II3C (Second Amendment) Act, 2O2O. Since the government has suspended initiation of insolvency proccedings under Scction 7 of the Code with respect to dcfault arising on or after 25-O3-2O2O for a period of one year with an objective to relieve the Corporate Debtors from the financial stress owing to shutdown of business during subsistence of COVID- 19 pandemic. l\r''' ? cP(rB)/ 1 61/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. l5 of 43 xl. Tha1. thc alleged date of default is false/incorrect. It is submitl.ed that the lirst disbursal has been made by the Respondent on 21.os.2020 as regard to the additional loan of -l .5 cr and last disbursal was made by the Respondent on 18.o7.2022 as regard to thc lOcr development loan. Irrom the contents of company petition preferred by the Respondent, it is evident that disbursal has been made by the Respondent after the purporl.cd date of default i.e. 30.09 .2o2o.'lhe focal point of the code is default in lulfilling repayment obligations of a corporal-e en1.ity, where a 'default' as defined under section 3(12) of the code has occurred. Furl.hermore, xii. Tha1. 1.hc Petition is ou1. of limitation and is barred by 1imi1.a1.ion. Respondent has stated the date of default as 0l.04.2021 as per his whims and wishes. As per 1-heir own admission in the recall notice dated 06.03.2023 paragraph no.1 I, thc default has occurred from the date of inception of the contract i.e. o3.o3.2o2o and going by such admission statement by the Applicant itself, it becomes crystal clear that the application is barred by limitation of 3 years from the date of right. to apply accrues or as per the alleged default date which the Applicant had concealed i.e. 0t.o4.2o2o date of the alleged lirst date of disbursal on the additional loan of Rs 1.S cr from thc date of liling of an application under IRC. It_ is stated that the 3 years have been elapsed. ,/ cP(rB)/161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. pvt. Ltd.

xiii. Tha1. initiation of CIIIP against the corporate Debtor would be contrary to the scope and objective of the code. xiv. It is submitted that as per the agreements executed between the Applicanl., Respondent and DCM, the liability to pay the dues of the Applicant was ol DCM and not of the l?espondent. Respondent has been in this business for over four decades and it has never defaulted in any of its debts before any bank or any party. l'he intent of the Code is resolving the sick and disl.ressed companies through CIRP. 'lhe intent was never to put tully functional, soJvent company into insolvency, which has 1.hc potential business and making revenues to meet its liabilities or else it will put good companies to insolvency which can be proved from the financial of the respondent and 1.hat the respondent will produce j1.s financial as and when required. xv. That this Tribunal is not a Recovery lrorum. The Applicant l.riggering insolvency process for recovering monies and taking over thc entire operations of the Respondent under various agreement.s is not warranted. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be initiat.ed for recovery of money. 1. A Rejoinder is filed by the Applicant to the reply 1 submitted by the Corporate Debtor on O2.OL.2O24 vide inward diary no. D5472. The Applicant denied all the .-L cP(tB)/16.1/AH M/202s In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

contentions raise d by the respondent and made jn submjssions the rejoinder which are stated as under: i. It is s1-a1-ed that there is no arbil-ration agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent-. The arbitration filed against the Applicanl-is just to frustrate the proceedings before this Tribunal. ii. It is submjtted that the Respondent sometime in the year F e bruary & March 2o2o through its l)ire ctors, approached Applicant for assistance in obtaining a Rupee Loan facility to the extcnt of INR ,10,00,00,OOO1- (lRupees Ten Crore only) to thc cxtcnt of 75o/o ol thc 1.otal investment in clevelopment of 1.he salt works ai-the Respondent's Versamedi unit and additional loan facility to the extent of INR 1,50,00,0OO/- (ltupees one crore F'ifty I-acs only) for l-hc purpose of removal of existing charge on the current assets belonging to the Rcspondcnt. 111. It is reiterated tha1. the Applicant is a Non-l3anking Financial Company. It is denied that the Applicant is an alter ego of DCM Shriram Limited and is engaged in the manufacturing of Chemicals, Sugars, and various other items.

It is submitted that the Applicant and DCM Shriram are two different entities undcr 1aw, carrying on differenl. businesses and are distinct entjtics and are run by dil'lerent I'loards. It is therefore submittcd that the Respondenl-is 1-rying to mix-up the issues '/ 0A-/ cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 .tn the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1B of 43 by stating that there is an Arbil.ration Agreement filed between the par:ties and pending at New l)elhi, whereas the fact remains is that there is no arbitral.ion agreement between the Applicant and Respondent and the Applicant has not invoked any arbitration proceedings. 1V. It is reitcrated that the Applicant is a r,-inancial creditor as stipulated under Sec.5(7) of IIlc. The Applicant falls under Sec.S(B)(a) & (0 of II:IC which is money borrowed against payment of interest. It is stated that section 5(8)(f) includes any amount raised under any other transacl.ion including any forward sale or purchase agreement. having the commercial effect of the borrowing. 'lherefore, the Applicant certainly can be construed as a Financial creditor as defined u/s.5(7) of IIlc who has disbursed a financiai debt as defined u/s. 5(8) of II]C.

V. It is denied that there is no time value of money. The mere fact tha1. the amount was disbursed with a stipulation of intercst shows the fact that there was consideration of time valuc of moncy. The definition of "time value of money is very wide. Thcre[ore, 1-here is no c<>nsideral-ion of the time value of money in the transaction entered into between the parties. vi. The Respondent company has failed to re-pay loan to the Applicant and thereforc, the Applicant has recalled the entire loan vide letter dated 06.03.2023. It is stated that there is 1.hus a deb1. which exist in the eyes of 1aw for which the cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. pvt. Ltd.

presenl. pctjlrior) is maintainable. Thc Respondent by imposing its own mis-interpretations to various clauses / agreements betwecn the parties cannot escape its liability to repay loan amount to the Applicant and 1.hus cannot defeat the legitimate claim of the Applicant to which it is legally entitled to. It is stated 1.hat the alleged counl-er claims raised by the Respondent against the Applicant and DCM Shriram Limited is nothing but an attempt made by the Respondent with ulte rior motives to defe at. the Ie gitimat_e claims of the Applicant for: getting back its loan disbursed to Respondent and interest thereon and thus not maintainable under law. vii. It is denied that there is any breach of l?upee 'lerm I-oan Agreement by the Applicant. The Ilespondent has accepted 1-hat amount was disbur-sed to the llespondent. viii. It is denied that the Applicant has played any fraud on the Respondent. It is denied that the transactions between the partics had technically commenced prior to March 2020. It is denied that the Applicant did adhere to the lRupee Term Loan Agreement and disbursed ttre amount belatedly. ix. I deny that the Applicanl-has not complied with Rule 4(3) of I&13 Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. I say 1-hat the Applicant served the advance copy oi petition upon ments Ltd. x. It is denied that there is any collusion between the Applicant and I)CM Shriram Limited or the Applicant and DCM Shriram cP(rB)/161/AHM/2023 In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. pvt. Ltd.

I-imited have any intention to usurp the unit of the Respondent by creating default like situation as wrongly and vaguely alleged by the Respondent. I say that the Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of DCM Shriram I-imited but is a scparate legal entity as per the Companies Act, 2013. xi. It is denied that the pet.ition filed by the Applicant is barred by Sec.lOA of IBC. It is denied that the petition filed by the Applicant is not within limitation. It is stated say that a bare perusal of the payment schedule annexed with the Rupee Term Loan Agreement would make it clear that the obligation on the part of Respondent was to make payment of the installmcnts on certain dates. The Respondent agrees that for the months bctween 1..4.2O2O and 31.3.2021, the Respondent cannot invoke 1.he jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Ilowever, for the de faults that occurred after 7.4.2021, the Applicant is in his r:igh1. to appr:oach this Tribunal. When the date of default is 1.4.2021, the petition is filed within three years from the dal.e of default and therefore, the petition is within the period of limi1.a1,ion. 12. Thc Applicant filed a Purshis on 26.02.2024 to place on record an Email dated 05.01.2024 addressed by NtrSL to the Applicant stating that the authentication status of Corporatc Dcbtor could not be categorized since the MCA /2 cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/202s In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2.1. of 43 and Form-C cmail attempts have failed due to e-mail bouncing back. 13. The Respondent filed an additional Affidavit on O9.O4.2O24 vide inward diary no. D3061 to correct the inadvertent mistakes in Reply filed by the Respondent on 17 .1o.2023. Also producing the statement of claim filed by the DCM Shriram Limjted against the corporate Debtor before Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal. 14. To thc abovc Additjonal Affidavit, the Applicant filed the reply to thc said affidavit on 29.04.2024 vide diary no. D3632 stating that the statement of claim pertains to the dispute between DCM Shriram Limjted and the Corporate Debtor and not the Applicant i.e. DCM Shriram Credit & Investment Limited.

15. The Respondent filed the Purshis on 20.06.2024 for submjssion of proof of paymont of cost in compliance of the ordcr dated 14.06.2024.

16. The Respondent filed an additional Affidavit on 20.06.2024 vide inward diary no. D4729 to show that issues with respect to the disbursal of the ioan within the -nt' ''laz' rcytAUanr,ttnn CPf In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

stipulated time and the obligation of the Corporate Debtor of DCM Shriram Ltd. to repay the loan are pending adjudication at large before the Ld. Arbitrator. 77. The Rospondent filed an Affidavit on 20.06.2024 vide inward diary no. D4816 to place on record Convenience Compilatjon of the mattcr.

18. J'hc Rcspondcnt liled an additional Affidavit on O9.O7.2024 vide jnward diary no. D5473 in compliance with ordcrs dated 21 .06.2024 and 09.O7.2024 to place on record copy of an mail datcd .O2.2O22 indicating e 19 conlirmation by Corporate Debtor about the Sth revjsed rcpaymcnt schcdule re ccive d from Applicant on 17.O2.2022. Respondent has alsr> shared a signed copy of the sth revised repayment schedule vide email dated 24 .O2.2022 with the Applicant. 19. The Applicant also filed an additional Affidavit on 26.07.2024 vide Inward Diary No. D5838 in response to the Additional Alfidavit of the respondent dated 09.O7.2024 sLaLtng that neither thc alleged Sth revised loan repayment schedule was ever accepted and signed by the q-/ /+ cP(rB)/161/AHM/2023 Ln the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt'Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Applicant nor it was ever acted upon as the corporate Debtor had never made any repayment of the 1oan amount as per the revised schedule. The Applicant placed undisputed Facts of the case which are as below: a) There is disbursement of amounts by the Applicant lo thc Corporate Dcbtor; b) The Corporate Debtor has defaulted in making paymcnts of the amounts of debt due to the Applicant which is more than Rupees One Crore. c) The Corporate Debtor has also given balance debt confirmation in writing to the Applicant; d) The Corporate Debtor has executed a Deed of Mortgage dated 3.3.2020 in favour of the Applicant to secure the repayment of the amounts disbursed by thc Appljcant to Corporatc Debtor; e) The Directors of the Corporate Debtor vtz. Shri Dincsh Parasrampuria, Smt. Aruna Parasrampuria and Shri Sureshchandra Parasrampuria have also executed Deed of Guarantees dated 3.3.2O2O in flavour ol Applicant;

/L- cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. pvt. Ltd.

Chargc on thc immovablc properties is registered by jn the Corporate Debtor favour of the Applicant u/s. 77 ol the Companies Act,2013; 20. Reliance has been placed on the following judgements by the Applicant which was submitted across the bar: Scope of Section 7 Petition (2023) B SCC 387 M. Suresh Kumar Reddy Vs. Canara Bank &Ors. ii. (2018) I SCC 407 lrunouentiue Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank & Anr. iii. (2023) 3 SCC 753 Orator Marketing Priuate Limited Vs. S amte xl)e sinz Priu ate Limitecl. iu. (2019) SCC Oruline NCLAII' I132 Gaurau Agranual, Director M/s. Albus India Ltd. Vs. 71{ Metallurgical (P) Ltd. &Anr. U. (2019) SCC Online NCLAT 52 Shailesh Sangani Vs Joel Cardoso &Anr. ui. Compang Appeal (AT) (Ins) 1264 of 2O19 Mukesh Kumar Aaganaal Vs. Anuraq Gupta. uii. (2023) 240 Comp Case 132 (NCLT) Ildelweiss Asse/ [?econstntction [,tcl. &Anr. Vs. NainaNitin Desai. Section I-OA of IBQ uiii. (2024) 242 Comp Case 429 NainaNitin Desai Vs. Ecielweiss Asse/ Reconstruction Ltcl. &Anr. /+ cP(rB)/161 /AH M/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

ix. (2023) SCC Online NCLAT 467 NainaNitin Desai Edeluteiss Asset Reconstruction Ltd. &Ann While admitting an application u/s.7 of IBC. existence of debt and default needs to be examined and not quantum of debt x. 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 147 Raiesh Kedia u. Phoenix ARC (P) t.td. xi. 2023 SCC Online NCLAT 299 Guruprasad V. I{ishobkar u. Shree Aahraya Saouhard Credit Scoiety Ltd. There is no bar to initiate CIRP u/s. 7 of IBC even if arbitration proceeding is pending. xii. CI:' (IR) 156(PB)/2017 (NCLT, Delhi) (DoD: 30.6.2017) Reliaruce Commercial linaruce l,td. us. Veci Cellulose Limitecl. xiii. Arb. P. 212 of 2024, IA 9B2l of 2024 (Delhi lIigh Court) (DoD: 22.5.2024) I'jitambar Soluex Put. Ltd. & Anr. us. Manju Sharma & Ors. xiu. 2021 (6) SCC 436 Incius lSiotech Priuate Limited us. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Irund. rAl 1343(AHM)2O23 2t. Present Application was filed by the Respondent in main tition undcr scction 60(5) of the Insolvency and Pe Bankruptcy Codc, 2016 rcad with Rule 11 of National

,/A' cP( t B )/.1 6.1 /A H M / 2 0 2 3 tn the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd-company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking following prayers: i. To dlsmlss Company Petition (IB) No.161(AHMffiled by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 for initiation of CIRP against the Application; ii. 'fo allou-t the Applicant to Jlle its Affidauit in Reply to the Company Petition in case praAer clause(a) ls rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal; iii. 'fo pass anL,t such order or orders as this Hon'ble 'lribunal may deem fit and exPedient; 22. The facts of thc abovc Interlocutory Application is same as the rcply filcd in thc majn Petition hence no need to repeat the samc. 23. We havc hcar:d Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Financial creditor as 1l as Ld. coun sel for the we Respond t>ntf Corporate Debtor and perused the material avaiiable on recrtrd. 24. The obscrvation and findings of this Tribunal are as follows:- ,t4 cP(rB)/ 1 61/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd' a) The Application has been filed under section 7 by tlne Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor 'The Maharaja Salt Works Co. P/t. Ltd.' seeking the admission of Corporate Debtor into Corporate Insolve ncy Resolution Process. b) The Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor executed following documents on 03.03 .2O2O: i. Rupee Loan Aqreement ii. I-ILtpothecation Aqreement iii. Mortagage Deed iu. Guarantee DeecTs u. Non-Disposal []ruc1eflakinq, Promissorg Note ui. Loan Term Salt Supply Agreement uii. l'ripartite Agreement. c) It is sccn that the Loan was disbursed to the Corporatc Debtor Rs. 10.00 crores and additional amount of Rs. .50 crore through Rupee Loan 1 Agreement dated 03.O3.2O2O along with loan repayment schedule which was revised on various occasions up to fivc times. The Sth revised Rcpaymcnt Schcdule was sent to the Corporate Dcbtor: on 24.02.2022 which was accepted by the cP(tB)/161/AH M/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate Dcbtor and was scnt back to the F'inancial Crcditor but with some modification. The Financia-l Creditor stated vide additional affidavit dated 23O.O7 .2024 that they did not accept the same and nevcr signed the said revised repayment schedule. d) As it js seen that the 1't De:fault Notice was sent to the F'jnancial Creditor by the Corporate Debtor on 17 .O2.2O21 for delay in disbursal of development loan alfecting dcvelopment work which was then sent on multiple occasion last being 6th Default Notice datcd 12.12.2021.

e) The Fjnancial Creditor also issued recall notice to the Corporate Debtor on 06.03.2023 calling upon to make payment of Rs. 11,25,63,498f - within 7 days. 'lhereafter a Corrigendum Notice dated 14.O3.2023 to recall nc>tice dated 06.03.2023 was issued for rectification of typographical error in paral0 of the Notice.

cP(rB)/ 1 61/AHM/202s In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Then the Demand Notice dated 06.04.2023 was issued u/s L3(21 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 upon Corporate Debtor by the Financial Creditor. g) It is sccn that the Financial Creditor has produced NeSL Form-C but failed to produce F'orm-D before this Tribunal. However, the Financial Creditor has placed tr-mail from NeSL stating that the E-mail with regards to the authentication status o[ Corporate Debtor bounced back. h) Thcrcfcrre, the Record of Default cannot be asccrtaincd without authe ntication by the NeSL, hence we are constrained to perusal at the documents present before us.

i) As it is seen from the bank statement the amount in question was disbursed to the Corporate Debtor.

During the course of the hearing the Sr. Counsel for i) the Corporate Debtor was relying on the matter pending before the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal stating that NCLT proceedings should not be continued' But as per scctjon 231 of thc IBC, 2016, ro other court ,r' h,z cP(rB)/1 61/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd-shall havc jurisdiction in respect of the matter in which the AA is empowered by this code to pass any order. The relevant section is reproduced below: "Section 231: Bar of jurisdiction No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in which the I Adjudicating Authority or the Board] is empowered by, or under, this Code fo pass any order and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any order passed by such [Adjudicating Authority or the Board] under this Code." k) It can be seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of M. Suresh Kumar Red.dg I/s Canara Bank& Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 712I OF 2022) stating that in the matter of Section 7, the only thing which is to be seen while ordering in Section 7 matters is whether there is debt and default.

r) we also rely on Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.( W.P.(civil) No. 99 of 2O18 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court more particularly para no. 35,36 and 37 of the said Judgment which are reproduced as below:- "35. lnsofar as set-off and counterclaim is concerned, a set-off of amounts due from financial creditors is a rarity. Usually, financial debts point only in one way amounts lent have to be repaid. cP( tB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

However, it is not as if a legitimate set-off is not to be considered at all. Such set-off may be considered at the stage of filing of proof of claims during the resolution process by the resolution professional, his decision being subject to challenge before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60. Section 60(5Xc) reads as follows: 60. Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons. xxx xxx xxx (S) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of xxx xxx xxx (c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code." "36. Equally, counterclaims, by their very definition, are independent rights which are not taken away by the Code but are preserved for the stage of admission of claims during the resolution plan. Also, there is nothing in the Code which interdicts the corporate debtor from pursuing such counterclaims in other judicial fora.

Form C dealing with submission of claims by financial creditors in the CIRP Regulations states thus: FORM C SUBM]SSION OF CLAIM BY FINANCIAL CREDITORS [Under Regulation 8 of the lnsolvency and Bankruptcy Board of lndia (lnsolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 20161 [Date] From [Name and address of the financial creditor, including address of its registered office and principal officel To The lnterim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional, [Name of / the lnsolvency Resolution Professional Resolution Professionall [Address as set out in public announcement] Subject: Submission of claim and proof of claim. Madam/Sir, [Name of the financial creditor], hereby submits this claim in respect of the corporate insolvency resolution process of [name of corporate debtor]. The details for the same are set out below: Relevant Particulars Namelof the financial creditor ldentification number of the financial creditor (lf an incorporated body, provide identification number and proof of incorporation. lf a partnership or individual provide identification records* of all the partners or the individual) Address 3 and email address of the financial creditor for correspondence Total 4amount of claim (including any interest as at the insolvency commencement date) Details.

5 of documents by reference to which the debt can be substantiated Details 6 of how and when debt incurred. .u cP( rB)/ 161/AH M/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Details 7 of any mutual credit, mutual debts,. or other mutuar dealings between the corporate debtor and the creditor which may be set-off against the claim Details 8 of any security held, the value of the. security, and the date it was given Details 9 of the bank account to which the amount of the claim or any part thereof can be transferred pursuant to a resolution plan List of 1 documents attached to this claim Oin order to prove the existence and non-payment of claim due to the financial creditor (Signature of financial creditor or person authorised to act on his behalf) [Please enclose the authority if this is being submitted on behalf of the financial creditorl Name in BLOCK LETTERS Position with or in relation to * creditor Address of person signing PAN number, passport, AADHAAR card or the identity card issued by the Election Commission of lndia. DECLARATION l, [Name of claimant], currenfly residing at [insert address], do hereby declare and state as follows: 1. [Name of corporate debtor], the corporate debtor was, at the insolvency commencement date, being the day of 20, actually indebted to me for a sum of Rs. [insert amount of claim].

2. ln respect of my claim of the said sum or any part thereof, I have relied on the documents specified below: [Please list the documents relied on as evidence of claim]. 3. The said documents are true, valid and genuine to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and no material facts have been concealed therefrom. 4. ln respect of the said sum or any part thereof, neither l, nor any person, by my order, to my knowledge or belief, for my use, had or received any manner of satisfaction or security whatsoever, save and except the following: [Please state details of any mutual credit, mutual debts, or other mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and the creditor which may be set-off against the claiml. 5. I am/l am not a related party of the corporate debtor, as defined under Section 5(24) of the Code. 6. I am eligible to join committee of creditors by virtue of proviso to Section 21(2) of the Code even though I am a related party of the corporate debtor. Date: Place: (Signature of the claimant) VERIFICATION l, [Name] the claimant hereinabove, do hereby verify that the contents of this proof of claim are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and no material fact has been concealed therefrom.

4, 4-/ cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. pvt. Ltd.

Verified at on this day of, 20 (Signature of claimant) [Note: ln the case of company or limited liability partnership, the declaration and verification shall be made by the director/manager/secretary/designated partner and in the case of other entities, an officer authorized for the purpose by the entity.l" "37. The trigger for a financial creditors application is non-payment of dues when they arise under loan agreements. lt is for this reason that Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 has been repealed by the Code and a change in approach has been brought about. Legislative policy now is to move away from the concept of inability to pay debts to determination of default. The said shift enables the financial creditor to prove, based upon solid documentary evidence, that there was an obligation to pay the debt and that the debtor has failed in such obligation. Four policy reasons have been stated by the learned Solicitor General for this shift in legislative policy. First is predictability and certainty. Secondly, the paramount interest to be safeguarded is that of the corporate debtor and admission into the insolvency resolution process does not prejudice such interest but, in fact, protects it. Thirdly, in a situation of financial stress, the cause of default is not relevant; protecting the economic interest of the corporate debtor is more relevant. Fourthly, the trigger that would lead to liquidation can only be upon failure of the resolution process." m)It is seen from documents placed that there was a financial debt as amount of Rs.I 1,30,03,4981- crores were disbursed to the Corporate Debtor and the default is stated to be occurred on I.O4.2O21. But O the contention of Corporate Debtor was that the revised sth repayment schedule will change the default date as further extension is provided. However,. it is seen that the Sth revised Repayment Schedule was sent back by Corporate Debtor to the Financiat Creditor with sarne modification. Morevoer, Financial Creditor filed an affidavit stating that they cP(rB)/.161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

ncvcr acccptcd thc said repayment schedule. Thcrcfore, the repayment of debt will be followed as per original repayment schedule.

n) Further, post the Sth repayment schedule dated 17 .O2.2022 applicant sent the recall notice on 06.03 .2023 followed by a corrigendum dated 14.03.2023 and recalled the entire loan amount of Rs. I 1,30,03,4981-. Fjnancial Creditor is claiming an amount of Rs. 13,47,29,1211- in this petition. The issue of recail notice puts the controversy regarding the Sth revjsed repaymcnt schedule to rest as entire debt bccame due and payable. As pcr section 3(12) of the code it is stated that o) default occurs when non-payment of debt wholly or partly or in installment of the amount not paid by the Corporate Debtor then there is default and from the lacts and circumstances of the case it is clear that therc was non-payment of the debt by the Corporate Dcbtor/ Corporate Debtor. the Section 3(12) is reproduce d as under:-

/1-/ cP(rB)/ 161/AH M/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

3 (12) "default" means non-payment of debt when whole or any part or instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not [paid] by the debtor or the Corporate Debtor, as fhe case may be,' 25. The present application is complete in terms of Section 7 (5) of the Code. Thc Applt"cantf Financial Creditor is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the financial debt breyond doubt. The outstanding financial debt is of more than rupees one crore which meets the threshold limjt as per scction 4 of the Code and is weli within the limitation for filing the present application. Moreover, the said default is not covered under the period exempted under Section I0A of IBC, 2016.

26. Further, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Innoaentiae Industries Limited a. ICICI Bqnk Limited, where it has discussed extensively the scope of the Adjudicating authority under section 7 of the IBC is limited to assessing the records provided by the financial creditor to satis$z itself that the default has occurred. 28. When it comes to a financial creditor triggering the process, Section 7 becomes relevant. Under the explanation to Sectior- 7(1), a default is in rcspcct of a financiai debt owed to any financial creditor of the corporate debtor - it need not be a debt owcd to the applicant financjal creditor. Under In the matterof M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Section (2), an application is to be made under sub-section (1) in such form and manner as is prescribed, which takes us to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Under Rule 4, tl:e application is made by a financial creditor in Form 1 accompanied by documents and records required therein. F'orm 1 is a tailcd form in 5 parts, which requires de particulars of thc applicant in Part I, particulars o[ in. corporate dcbtor in Part II, particulars of the proposcd jnterim resoiution professional in part III, particulars of the financial dcbt in part IV and documcnts, records and cvidence of default in part V. Under Ruie 4(3), the applicant is to dispatch a copy ol the application liled with the adudicating authority by registered post or speed post to the registcrcd office of the corporate debtor. The speed, within which the adjudicating authority is to asccrtain the cxistencc of a dcflault from the records o[ thc information utility or on the basis of evidence furnjshcd by the financial creditor, is important. This it must do within 14 days of the reccipt of the application.

It js at the stage of Section 7(5\, where thc adjudicating authority is to be satjsfied that a dcfault has occurred., that the corporate dcbtor is entitlcd to point out that a default has not occurred jn thc sense that the "debt", which may aiso include a disputcd claim, is not duc. A debt may not be due if it is not payablc in law or in fact. The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has ,r..rrr.d, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rcctify the defect within 7 days o[ rcccipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. undcr sub-section (7), the adjudicating authority shall thcn communicate the order passed to the linancial credjtor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admission or rcjcction of such application, as the case may be. 30. On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case o[_ a c orporate ilcbtor who commits a default of u'v .,--ltril#gyffi-r,r*"-'--r'r,*,-- 4i 37 of a financial debt. the adiudicating authoritlr has merely to see the records of the information utilitlz or other evidence produced b-v the financial creditor to satisf,v itself that a default has occurred.

It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is "due" i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise. 27. Hence, thc Application filcd under section 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the initiation of the corporatc insolvency solution process against the re Respondentlcorporate Debtor deserves to be admitted.

28. Accordingly, in light of the above facts and circumstances, it is, hereby ordered as under: -

The entlCorporate Debtor- M/s. The (i) Respond Maharaja Salt Works Co. Pvt. Ltd. is admitted in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under section 7 of the IBC, 2016. (ii) As a consequence, thereof, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 is declared for prohibiting all of the following in terms of section 1a(1) of the IBC, 201 6. az?/ cP(rB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In the matter of M/s. The Maharaia Salt Works Co' Pvt. Ltd.

a". the institution of suits or continuation of pending sults or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of ang judgment' decree or order inanacourtoflana,tribunal,arbitrationpanelor other authoritY; of b. transferring, erlatmbering, alienating or disposing by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; anA action to foreclose, recouer or enforce anA by the corporate debtor in security interest created. respect of its property including ang action under the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and. Enforcement of Securitg Interest Act' 2OO2; d.. the recouer!) of any propertl1 by an ou)ner or lessor uthere tuin property ls occupied by or in the possess ion of the corporate debtor' e.,fheprouisionsofsub-Section(1)shallhotaeuer,not apply to such transactions, agreements czs ma!/ be notified.bytLrcCentralGouernmentinconsultation uitLtanyfinancialsectorregulatorandtoasuretgin a contract of guarantee to a Corporate Debtor' (iii) The ordcr ol moratorium shall havc e lfect flrom the date o[ this order till the completion of the corporate Insolvcncy Re solution Process or until this Adjudicating AuthorityapprovcstheResolutionPianundersub-scction ) of Section 31 or passes an order for (1 aZ? c I P n ( 't t h B e )/ m 1 6 a 1 tt / e A r H o M f M /2 / 0 s 2. 3 The Maharaia Salt Works Co' Pvt' Ltd' 39 of 43 liquidation of corporate Debtor under Section 33 of the IBC, 2O16, as the case maY be.

(ir) It is fur:ther directed that the supply of essential goods/services to the Corporate Debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period as per provisions of sub-sections (2) and, (2A) of Section 14 of IBC, 2016' (v) As proposed by the Financial Creditor, we appoint Mr. sunil Kumar Kabra, having Registration No. IBBI/IPA- lI Lt662, (email-l under OO1/IP-PO10 l2Ol7-l8l section.l3(1X.)oftheCodetoactaSlnterim of corporate Debtor, Resolution Professional ('3IRP'D) subject to the condition that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. He shall conduct the corporate Insolvency Process as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 r.w. Regulations made thereunder. (rri) Thc IRP shall Porform all his functions as contcmplated, inter-alia, by sections 17, 18, 20 & 21 of the IBC, 2076. It is further made clear that all ,/2" cP(tB)/ 161/AHM/2023 In'the matter of M/s' The Maharaia Satt Works Co' Pvt' Ltd' 40 of 43 with the corporate Debtor, its personnel connected Promoter or any other person associated with the management of the Corporate Debtor are under lega1 obligation under section 19 of the IBC, 2016 for to the extcnding assistance and co-operation IRP' where any personnel of the crlrporate Debtor, its Promoter or any oth.er person required to assist or co-operate with IRP, do not assist or co-operate the IRP is at libcrty to make appropriate application to this Adjudicating Authority with a prayer flor passing an appropriatc order.

(vii) This Adjudicating Authority dirccts the IRP to make a public announcement of the initiation of CIRP and call for the submission of claims under section 15 as rcquirccl by section 3(1)(b) of the IBC, 2016 1 ' (viii) The TRP is cxPected to take full charge of the CorPorate Dcbtor assets, and documents without any delaY in whatsoever. He is also free to take police assistance this regard, and this court hereby directs the Police

2" cP(rB)/ 161/AH M/2023 In'the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Salt Works Co' Pvt' Ltd' 41. of 43

Authorities to render all assistance as may be required by the IRP in this regard.

(i') The IRP or the RP, as the case may be shall submit to thi s Adj u dicatin g Au th oritY periodical rePort with regard to the Progress of the CIRP in resPect of the Corporate Debtor.

(x) 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 as a part of obligation imposed by going concern Section 20 of the IBC, 2016' (*i) The Financial creditor is directed to pay an advance of (Rupees T\vo Lakh Only) to the IRP Rs.2,OO,OOO/-within a period of 7 days from the date of this order to meet the cost of GIRP arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims etc. till the coc decides about his fees/ exPenses- (xii) The Rcgistry is directed to communicate a copy of this Debtor and ordcr to the Financial Creditor, CorPorate cP(IB)/ 161/AHM/2023 in'the matter of M/s' The Maharaja Satt Works Co' Pvt' Ltd' 42 of 43 to thc iRP and thc conccrncd Registrar of Companies, afltcr complction of necessary formalities, within seven working clays and upload the same on the website immcdiatcly after the pronouncement of the order. The jts Rcgistrar of companies shall update website by updating thc Mastcr Data of the Corporate Debtor in MCA portal specific mention regarding admission of thjs Application and shall forward the compliance rcport to the Registrar, NCLT.

(xiii) Thc commencemcnt of thc corporate Insolvency Rcsolution Process shall bc effective from the date of this order. 29. In view of the above observation, CP(IB)/161(AHM.\2O23. is hereby dismissed. A certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied" for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities. 30. In view of the above IA No. 1343(AHM,l2o23 is dismissed'

KAKAR SHAMMI KHAN MEMBER (JUDICIAI,) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ST cP(IB)/ 1 61/AHM/2023 In'the matter of M/s. The Maharaja Satt Works Co' Pvt' Ltd'