In the matter of TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani,

BRIEF FACTS: 1. The present petition is filed u/s. 95 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC/Code")

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 r/w Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 by TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd (“hereinafter referred to as Petitioner/Financial Creditor”) for initiating insolvency process against Mr. Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani (“hereinafter referred to as Personal Guarantor/Respondent”) for outstanding debt of Rs. 10,90,17,138.46 (Rupees Ten Crores Ninety Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Eight and Forty- Six Paise Only) with further interest and charges payable. The Date of Default as specified in Part-III of the present petition is 25.08.2025. 2. The Petitioner is a Multi-State Scheduled Bank registered on 23.10.2008 under the provisions of the Multi-State Societies Act, 2002, having its address at TJSB House, Plot No. B-5, Road No. 2, Behind Aplab Lab, Wagle Industrial Estate Thane (W) - 400604. 3. The Personal Guarantor, viz. Mr. Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani having his address at 405, Mahavir Tower, LBS Marg, Near Kamgar Hospital, Mulund - 400080, stood as the Guarantor for M/S. Capitol Fibres Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporate Debtor/ Principal Borrower”) to secure the credit facilities extended to the Corporate Debtor. 4. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 04.09.1995 bearing CIN No. U17120MH1995PTC092324 and has its registered address at Plot No. C-30 Road No 16, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West), Thane, Maharashtra, India - 400604. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT: 5. The Corporate Debtor approached the Applicant from time to time for availing various credit facilities. Upon considering the 2 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 requests, the Applicant sanctioned the said financial facilities on different dates, the details whereof are set out in the table hereinbelow:

6. The aforesaid facilities were inter-alia, secured by way of Personal Guarantees, furnished by the Respondent in favour of the Applicant. The following Personal Guarantees were extended to secure the facilities sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor:

3 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 7. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor committed default in repayment of the credit facilities and breached the terms and conditions governing the said facilities. Consequently, the loan account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as a Non- Performing Asset (NPA) on 26.06.2021 in accordance with the applicable guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. 8. The Applicant issued a Demand Notice dated 10.12.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Corporate Debtor and its Personal Guarantors, including the Respondent, calling upon them to discharge the outstanding dues within 60 days from date of notice. However, despite service of the said notice, the Corporate Debtor and the Personal Guarantors failed to liquidate the outstanding liabilities. 9. Thereafter, The Applicant vide invocation letter dated 18.08.2025, invoked the personal guarantees furnished by the Respondent and other guarantors, calling upon them to jointly and severally discharge the outstanding liabilities due under the respective credit facilities. 10. Thereafter, a Statutory Demand Notice under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 was issued to the Personal Guarantors on 28.08.2025. However, no repayment or settlement has been affected. 11. It is submitted that the Respondent, vide replies dated 03.09.2025 and 12.09.2025 to the Demand Notice and the invocation of the Personal Guarantee, denied liability under the Personal Guarantee and contended that no debt was due and payable. The Respondent further objected to the invocation of the guarantee, alleging that the Applicant was attempting to revive a time-barred debt by invoking the guarantee afresh, despite the guarantee having already been 4 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 invoked through the notice dated 10.12.2021 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and accordingly rejected the Applicant's claim. Pursuant thereto on 21.09.2025, The Applicant addressed a rejoinder to the said notices. 12. As on 30.09.2025, the total outstanding amount payable by the Corporate Debtor and the Personal Guarantor is stated to be Rs. 10,90,17,138.46 (Rupees Ten Crores Ninety Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Eight and Forty-Six Paise Only) along with further interest and charges, which continue to accrue. 13. In view of the continued default and failure of the Personal Guarantor to honour the guarantee obligations, the Applicant filed the present Petition seeking initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent under Section 95 of the Code. 14. The Applicant further Submitted that the debt in respect of which the present insolvency resolution process has been initiated does not include any ‘excluded debt’ as defined under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, namely: (i) any liability to pay fine imposed by a Court or Tribunal; (ii) any liability to pay damages for negligence, nuisance, or breach of statutory, contractual or other legal obligations; (iii) any liability to pay maintenance to any person under any law for the time being in force; (iv) any liability in relation to a student loan; and (v) any other debt as may be prescribed under Section 79(15)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 15. The Applicant has filed written submissions reiterating that the financial facilities granted to the Corporate Debtor, the execution of the Personal Guarantees by the Respondent, the default committed by the Corporate Debtor, the invocation of the Personal Guarantee and issuance of the statutory demand notice in Form-B are all duly established from the documents placed on record. 5 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 16. It is further submitted that the Respondent has admitted receipt of the notice dated 10.12.2021 issued under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and has itself contended that the said notice amounted to invocation of the Personal Guarantee. The Applicant, therefore, submits that it is not placing reliance upon the subsequent invocation notice dated 18.08.2025 for establishing invocation of the Personal Guarantee. It is further submitted that despite due invocation of the guarantee and service of the statutory demand notice in Form B upon the Respondent, no payment was made towards the outstanding dues. Accordingly, the Applicant contends that the statutory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 have been duly complied with and the present Petition is liable to be admitted. 17. It is submitted that the objection regarding limitation is untenable as the debt was duly acknowledged in the Balance Sheets of the Corporate Debtor for the financial years ending 31.03.2023 and 31.03.2024, which, in terms of Clause 6 of the Deed of Personal Guarantee, is binding upon the Respondent. The Applicant, therefore, contends that the present Petition has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL: 18. This Tribunal, vide Order dated 28.11.2025, appointed Mr. Sandeep Jayant Kulkarni as the Resolution Professional and directed him to submit a report under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 within a period of 10 days. Pursuant thereto, the Resolution Professional filed I.A (I.B.C.) No. 32/MB/2026 for placing the said report on record, which came to be taken on record by this Tribunal vide Order dated 07.01.2026. 19. The Resolution Professional, in view of the detailed examination of the Application along with the supporting documents, has 6 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 recommended that the Application filed by the Financial Creditor, namely TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd, under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, bearing C.P. (IB) No. 1285/2025, be admitted under Section 100 of the Code and that the Insolvency Resolution Process be commenced against the Personal Guarantor, namely Mr. Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani. 20. The Resolution Professional further states that: “As examined by the Resolution Professional herein-above the debt is owed by the Personal Guarantor to the Financial Creditor and the Petition satisfies the provisions of the Code; the Resolution Professional Recommends Admission of the C.P. (IB)/1285(MB) 2025 and prays before this Hon'ble Bench to pass an Order U/s. 100 of the Code. This reasoning is given by the Resolution Professional in pursuance to the provisions of S. 99 (9) of the Code.” 21. On 23.03.2026, this Tribunal had directed the Resolution Professional to file fresh report in view of objection raised by the Personal Guarantor that the Resolution Professional, having sought information from them in terms of Section 99(4) of IBC vide letter dated 10.12.2025, proceeded to file this report on 13.12.2025 thus denying mandatory period of 7 days to the Personal Guarantor. 22. Pursuant thereto, the Resolution Professional filed I.A (I.B.C.) No. 1809/MB/2026 for placing the said report on record, which came to be taken on record by this Tribunal vide Order dated 04.05.2026. 23. In view of the detailed examination of the material on records, The Resolution Professional recommended the Admission of CP(IB)1285/MB/2025 and also recommended the commencement of Insolvency Resolution Process against Mr. 7 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani. 24. The Resolution Professional further states that: “…. I hereby recommend for the acceptance of the application C.P. (IB)/ 1285(MB)2025 filed U/s 95 (1) of the Code by the M/s. TJSB Sahakari Bank Limited to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against Mr. Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani, Personal Guarantor to M/s. Capitol Fibers Private Limited and the Adjudicating Authority may pass an appropriate order U/s. 100 of the Code.” SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 25. The Respondent has filed an Affidavit in Reply dated 13.05.2026 opposing the fresh Report of the Resolution Professional. It is submitted that the fresh Report is merely a reproduction of the earlier report with minor changes and has been filed without any independent examination of the Petition or the documents on record. The Respondent contends that the Resolution Professional has acted mechanically and in violation of Sections 97(6) and 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, without application of mind. It is further submitted that despite the specific directions of this Tribunal to submit a fresh report, the Resolution Professional failed to issue a fresh notice under Section 99(4) of the Code, thereby denying the Respondent an opportunity to furnish further information and documents, including details of recoveries made under the SARFAESI Act. According to the Respondent, such failure amounts to non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions and violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the fresh Report unsustainable in law. 26. The Respondent has filed written submissions contending that the 8 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 fresh Report of the Resolution Professional has been filed mechanically without independent examination of the material on record and in violation of Sections 97 and 99 of the Code. It is further submitted that the Resolution Professional failed to comply with the directions of this Tribunal by not issuing a fresh notice under Section 99(4) of the Code, thereby denying the Respondent an opportunity to furnish further information. Accordingly, the Respondent has prayed for rejection of the Resolution Professional's Report and dismissal of the present Petition. 27. The Respondent has further submitted that the Report of the Resolution Professional is merely recommendatory in nature and is not binding upon this Tribunal. It is contended that the Adjudicating Authority is required to independently examine the existence of debt, default and other issues, including limitation, before passing any order under Section 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In support of the said contention, the Respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 435, to contend that the Resolution Professional performs only a recommendatory role and that the Adjudicating Authority is duty-bound to independently apply its mind after complying with the principles of natural justice. 28. The Respondent submitted that no crystallised debt or default exists, as the validity of the NPA classification is pending adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Securitisation Application No. 540 of 2023. Hence, the liability of the Personal Guarantor has not crystallised and the present proceedings are premature. 29. The Respondent further submitted that although the DRT by its order dated 30.01.2026 held that the SARFAESI demand notice 9 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 to be defective, the said order is presently under challenge before the DRAT and DRAT has stayed the said order by order dated 30.03.2026. As the very foundation of the Applicant's claim is sub judice, continuation of the present proceedings is unwarranted. 30. It was submitted that the Applicant is seeking to invoke the provisions of the IBC on the basis of the same disputed NPA classification which is pending before the DRT, thereby amounting to parallel proceedings and an abuse of the insolvency process. 31. The Respondent further contended that the Applicant has not disclosed the correct outstanding liability, as the amount claimed in the petition differs from its own audit report and does not account for the amount realised through auction of the secured assets. 32. It is further contended that the present Petition is barred by limitation, the personal guarantee having already been invoked on 10.12.2021, and that a fresh invocation dated 18.08.2025 cannot revive a time-barred claim. The Respondent has also submitted that no acknowledgment of debt has been executed by the Personal Guarantor to extend the period of limitation, that the alleged debt is not legally enforceable and remains disputed in proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and that the statutory demand notice issued under Form B is incomplete and not in compliance with the prescribed requirements. On these grounds, the Respondent has prayed for rejection of the Resolution Professional's Report and dismissal of the present Petition. FINDINGS & ANALYSIS: 33. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record, the Reports submitted by the Resolution 10 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 Professional under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 34. The material placed on record establishes that the Applicant had extended various credit facilities to the Corporate Debtor and that the Respondent had executed the Deed of Personal Guarantee in favour of the Applicant guaranteeing repayment of the dues of the Corporate Debtor. The execution of the Deed of Personal Guarantee has not been specifically denied by the Respondent. It is also not in dispute that the Corporate Debtor committed default in repayment of the credit facilities, resulting in classification of the loan account as Non- Performing Asset (NPA) on 26.06.2021. 35. It is further evident from the record that the Applicant invoked the Personal Guarantee by issuing a Demand Notice dated 10.12.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Corporate Debtor and its Personal Guarantors, including the Respondent, Which is also not in dispute and thereafter issued the statutory demand notice dated 28.08.2025 in Form-B as prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019. Despite receipt of the notices, the Respondent failed to discharge the outstanding liability. The Respondent has also admitted receipt of the notices, though disputing the legal consequences thereof. 36. The principal objection of the Respondent pertains to limitation. According to the Respondent, the Personal Guarantee stood invoked through the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and, therefore, the present Petition is barred by limitation. We are unable to accept the said contention. The material placed on record discloses that the liability of the Corporate Debtor continued to be acknowledged in its Balance Sheets for the years 2023-2024. The Present petition is admittedly filed on 24.11.2025. The Applicant has also relied upon Clause 6 of the Deed of Personal Guarantee, which 11 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 provides that acknowledgment of liability by the Corporate Debtor shall be binding upon the Personal Guarantor. The relevant portion from the Deed of Personal Guarantee is reproduced hereinbelow: “6. It is also agreed that any admission or acknowledgement in writing by the Borrower of the amount of the said debt or otherwise relating to the subject matter of this Guarantee, shall be binding on us and we accept the correctness of any statement of account served on the Borrower which is certified by any Manager or Officer of the Bank and the same shall be binding and conclusive as against us also, and we further agree that in making an acknowledgement or making a payment he shall be treated as our duly authorised agent.” Therefore, Such acknowledgments constitute valid acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and have the effect of extending the period of limitation. 37. In the present case, the statutory demand notice under Rule 7(1) was issued on 28.08.2025 and the present Petition has thereafter been instituted on 24.11.2025 which is within the extended period of limitation. Merely because the Personal Guarantee had earlier been invoked through the notice dated 10.12.2021 does not render the present proceedings barred by limitation when the underlying debt continued to be acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor in accordance with law and the terms of the Deed of Personal Guarantee make such acknowledgment binding upon the Respondent. 38. The contention of the Respondent that no acknowledgment was executed by the Personal Guarantor, therefore, cannot be accepted in view of the contractual stipulation contained in the Deed of Personal Guarantee and the acknowledgments made by the Corporate Debtor. We are, therefore, satisfied that the present Petition is not barred by limitation. 39. It is relevant to refer Clause 13 of the Deed of Guarantee which 12 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 provides as under - “13. Any notice by way of request, demand or otherwise hereunder may be given by the Bank to us or any of us personally or may be left at then or last known, place of business or residence in India of us or any of us addressed as aforesaid to us or may be sent by post to us or any of us addressed as aforesaid and if sent by post it shall be deemed to have been given at the time when it would be delivered in due course of post and it shall be sufficient to prove that the envelope containing the notice was posted by the Bank.” 40. It is also contended by the Respondent that the Resolution Professional failed to give 7 days’ time after being directed by this Tribunal on 23.03.2026 for filing of a fresh report in view of earlier report filed by him was not accepted by this Tribunal on the ground of denial of hearing in terms of Section 99(4)/(5) of IBC. It is noted that Section 99(4) vests a discretion in the Resolution Professional to call for further information or explanation in connection with the Application from the Debtor, and in case, such further information or explanation is called for, the Debtor is granted 7 days’ time to respond. In the present case, it is noted that the Resolution Professional had not called further information or explanation in connection with the Application from the Debtor in terms of Section 99(4) of IBC, accordingly, the Respondent Personal Guarantor cannot be aggrieved for non-provision of opportunity to provide information or explanation in connection with the Application. Nonetheless, the Resolution Professional had earlier required, vide letter dated 10.12.2025, the Respondent Personal Guarantor to furnish the information / explanation stated therein, and there was no bar on the Respondent Personal Guarantor to provide the same to the Resolution Professional if he considered it necessary for information of Resolution Professional. 41. In the present case, the respondent/personal guarantor has admitted the 13 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 receipt of notice under section 13 (2) of the SERFAESI Act, 2002 dated 10.12.2021 and pleading that the guarantee came to be invoked vide said notice as against the claim of the Applicant/Creditor that the guarantee was invoked vide notice dated 18.08.2025. This constitutes specific admission in relation to receipt of the notice under section 13 (2) of the SERFAESI Act, 2002 whereby the respondent called upon to pay in terms of guarantee. On perusal of the order passed by the hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), It is noted that the notice under Section 13(2) suffered from certain defects on account of absence of facility-wise particulars, such finding pertains to the validity of the SARFAESI proceedings and not to the factum of invocation of the Personal Guarantee. Moreover, the said order of the hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal is admittedly under challenge before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and its operation has been stayed. Consequently, the observations made by the hon’ble DRT cannot be relied upon to invalidate the invocation of the Personal Guarantee for the purposes of the present proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 42. The Respondent has further contended that the Resolution Professional failed to conduct an independent examination and mechanically submitted the Report without complying with the provisions of Sections 97 and 99 of the Code. We have carefully examined the Report as well as the objections raised by the Respondent. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 435, that the Report of the Resolution Professional is recommendatory in nature and does not bind the Adjudicating Authority. 43. Upon an independent consideration of the material available on record, we are satisfied that the financial debt, execution of the Personal Guarantee and the default committed by the Corporate Debtor are duly established by the documentary evidence placed on 14 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 record. The objections raised by the Respondent do not dislodge the existence of the debt or the liability arising under the Personal Guarantee. 44. The execution of Guarantee Agreements during the period of 2014 to 2021 by the Respondent establishes his status as Personal Guarantor with co-extensive liability under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 45. The Guarantee was invoked vide Demand Notice dated 10.12.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Corporate Debtor and its Personal Guarantors, including the Respondent, calling upon them to discharge the outstanding dues. It observed that despite service of the said notice, the Corporate Debtor and the Personal Guarantors failed to liquidate the outstanding liabilities. 46. Upon perusal of the Demand Notice issued under [Under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019] sent to the Respondent in respect of unpaid debt in default due from Applicant. It is stated in the Notice dt. 28.08.2025, that "the undersigned request you to unconditionally pay the unpaid debt in default in full within fourteen days from the receipt of this letter, failing which, the insolvency resolution process, under the code shall be initiated against you". 47. The statutory requirements under Section 95 read with Rule 7 of the 2019 Rules have been complied with. The Resolution Professional, in exercise of powers under Section 99(9), has recommended admission. 48. Hence, this Tribunal is satisfied that a debt is due and payable by the Personal Guarantor and that the default has occurred. The Application is complete in terms of the Code and Rules. Accordingly, the requirements under Section 100 of the Code stand fulfilled. 49. Since there exists a debt and there is a default in payment thereof and such default amount exceeds the threshold limit as applicable to the 15 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 personal guarantor for invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal, the Petition deserves to be allowed for commencement of insolvency resolution process in case of personal guarantor. ORDER: 50. Upon perusal of the documents on record, it is clearly established that the Corporate Debtor has committed defaults in repayment of loan amount granted by the Financial Creditor. Mr. Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani, Personal Guarantor to M/S. Capitol Fibres Pvt. Ltd. has also committed default in payment of amount due from the Principal Borrower in terms of guarantee after invocation thereof. The Application filed by the Creditor satisfies the requirement as set out in Section 95 of the Code. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the Respondent is liable to be admitted to the bankruptcy process in terms of Section 100 (2) of the Code. 51. Considering the above facts and circumstances and upon perusal of the documents on record, the C.P. (IB)/1285/MB/2026 filed under Section 95 of the IBC, 2016 is hereby Admitted and the Insolvency Resolution Process stands initiated against Mr. Prem Dharamdas Kewalramani viz. the Respondent herein. We hereby direct as hereinafter: I. Initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent/Personal Guarantor and moratorium in relation to all the debts is declared, from today i.e. date of admission of the application, and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 180 days, or this Tribunal passes order on the repayment plan under Section 114 whichever is earlier as provided under Section 101 of IBC, 2016. During the moratorium period, a. Any pending legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed, and 16 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 b. The creditors of the debtor shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt; and c. The debtor shall not transfer, alienate, encumber, or dispose of any of his assets or his legal rights or beneficial interest therein; d. The provisions of this section shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. II. The Resolution Professional viz. MR. SANDEEP JAYANT KULKARNI, having Insolvency Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N01080/2021- 2022/13714, having address at Office No.1, SN.167A/B Ekadant APTS PL-26, Suvarna Baug Colony Kothrud, Pune - 411029, Karve Road, Opposite the Business Hub, Near Mirch Masala Hotel, Pune, Maharashtra - 411029, having E-mail address kulkarni.sandeep@rediffmail.com having Contact No. 9673000045, is directed to cause a public notice published on behalf of the Adjudicating Authority within 7 days of passing this Order on the website of the NCLT Mumbai Bench, inviting claims from all Creditors, within 21 days of such issue. The Resolution Professional shall discharge the functions/duties casted upon him under the provisions of the Code in this relation within time bound manner and shall be empowered to exercise the powers vested in him for discharge of such functions/duties. III. The Applicant is directed to deposit INR 75,000/- (Indian Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand) or such amount as is agreed between the Resolution Professional and the Applicant to the bank account of the Resolution Professional within one week, towards his fees and out of 17 | Page

MUMBAI BENCH - I C.P. (IB) No. 1285/MB/2025 pocket expenses, which shall be such as is approved by the applicant herein and subsequently confirmed by the Creditors. This shall be subject to the rules and regulations under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. IV. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of order to the Resolution Professional immediately after the pronouncement of order, and upload the same on the website within seven working days after the pronouncement of order. V. Ordered accordingly.

SD/- SD/- Prabhat Kumar Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Vipul Ghate

18 | Page