In the matter of VATIKA IT PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL COURT-V, NEW DELHI IA NO. 4051/2025 IN CP IB NO. 203/(ND)/2025 An Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

IN THE MATTER OF:

VATIKA IT PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED Flat No. 224A, 2nd Floor, Devika Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi (110019) ...Applicant/Corporate Debtor Versus BEACON TRUSTEESHIP LIMITED 5W, 5th Floor, The Metropolitan Building, E-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 …Respondent/Financial Creditor

Order Delivered on: 09.10.2026 CORAM: SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MS. REENA SINHA PURI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) APPEARANCES: For the Applicant : Sr. Adv. Virender Ganda, Adv. Vishal Ganda, Adv. Ayandeb Mitra, Adv. Riya Palnitkar, Adv. Pulkit Goyal

For the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Sudhir K Makkar, Mr. Gaurav Mitra,

IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Ms. Yashodhara Gupta, Mr. Kevin Chadha, Advs.

ORDER 1. The present Application has been filed by Vatika IT Parks Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against Beacon Trusteeship Ltd., the Financial Creditor, to raise objection of maintainability against the Company Petition bearing CP IB No. 203 of 2025.

2. The reliefs sought by the Corporate Debtor through the present Application are as follows: a. Allow the present Application and refer the parties to Arbitration; b. Dismiss the Insolvency Application in view of the Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and c. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. The Corporate Debtor submits that certain assets of the Corporate Debtor and its group companies were mortgaged pursuant to the DTD1 dated 29.07.2019, which was executed by the Financial Creditor with the Corporate Debtor, in its capacity of Debenture Trustee for Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. i.e., the Debenture Holder. As per submissions, the India Bulls Housing Finance changed its name to Sammaan Capital Ltd. and subsequently, vide assignment deed dated 30.03.2026, Asset Reconstruction Company (India)

Debenture Trust Deed IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

Ltd. became the new Debenture Holder. It is stated that the first amendment to the DTD dated 17.01.2020 provides that determination of redemption premium, if any payable, is intrinsically linked to the sale of the mortgaged assets.

4. It is contended that the Insolvency Petition bearing CP IB No. 203 of 2025 is an attempt to disguise the disputes which are connected to a Settlement Agreement dated 29.04.2023, which was executed between the Corporate Debtor along with its group companies and the Financial Creditor. It is stated that the debentures of the Debenture Holder forms part of the Settlement Agreement as both the Corporate Debtor and Debenture Holder are parties to the Settlement Agreement, and that Clause 9 of the said Agreement provides for arbitration in case of disputes.

5. However, as per submissions, the Debenture Holder attempted to terminate the Settlement Agreement in an unwarranted manner on 11.07.2024. Consequently, the Corporate Debtor along with its group companies approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by way of Petitions under Section 9 of the IBC2. Subsequently, in terms of Clause 9 of the Settlement Agreement, arbitration was invoked by the Corporate Debtor vide a notice dated 05.11.2024. Accordingly, an Arbitrator was appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 02.12.2024, with the mutual consent of the parties.

OMP (I) (Comm.) No. 365 of 2024; and OMP (I) (Comm.) No. 364 of 2024. IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

6. It is therefore, submitted that the issues connected with the sale of mortgaged assets and the subject matter of the Insolvency Petition are already subject to arbitration proceedings, to which the Corporate Debtor and Debenture Holder are already parties. Thus, it is prayed that the Insolvency Petition bearing CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 be dismissed and the parties be referred to arbitration.

REPLY OF THE FINANCIAL CREDITOR 7. It is submitted that the assets of the Corporate Debtor were mortgaged as a security of financial obligations towards the Debenture Holders. However, such mortgage did not have any connection with the Settlement Agreement, as has been contended by the Corporate Debtor. The said agreement was instead, executed in relation to distinct real estate transactions (ATS and buy-back agreements). Also, no buy-back rights or obligations in respect of the mortgaged properties were created in favour of or by the Corporate Debtor under the Agreement. Thus, the rights of the Financial Creditor, including enforcement of the mortgage and remedies under the IBC, remain unaffected.

8. Further, it is stated that the main Insolvency Petition concerns default to remit OCDs3, committed by the Corporate Debtor in terms of the DTD, however, the transactions under the DTD are not a subject matter of the ongoing arbitration proceedings. Also, the Settlement Agreement does not make any mention of the OCDs or DTD. The Corporate Debtor has been silent upon the repayment of the outstanding dues of Rs. 233,74,19,372, which is a subject matter of dispute in the main Insolvency Petition. It is thus, contended that the alleged

Optionally Convertible Debentures IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026 dispute in the Settlement Agreement is different from the debt and default in question in Section 7 Petition.

9. It is further stated that the arbitration clause under the Settlement Agreement pertains only to the disputes arising from the Settlement Agreement. The DTD itself doesn’t contain any arbitration clause. Instead, Clause 49 of the DTD stipulates that the Courts and Tribunals at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle the disputes that may arise out of the DTD. Therefore, the reliance of the Corporate Debtor upon the arbitration clause is misplaced.

10. Thereafter, it is stated that even if it is assumed that a valid arbitration agreement exists, the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indus Biotech (P) Ltd. v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund4 would come to play, which provides that referral to arbitration at the pre-admission stage would undermine the objectives of IBC and so, at such stage, the Adjudicating Authority is required to determine the existence of financial debt and default in a time-bound manner. Reliance has also been placed on Section 238 of the IBC to express that the IBC has an overriding effect over all other laws, and thus, existence of arbitration agreement becomes immaterial once the debt and default stands established.

11. In view of the above, it is prayed that the present Application be dismissed.

(2021) 6 SCC 436 IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 12. We have heard the Counsels for Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor and have perused the documents on record.

13. The contention of the Corporate Debtor is that the subject matter of dispute in Section 7 IBC Petition is already pending arbitration proceedings, in terms of Clause 9 of the Settlement Agreement and therefore, the Section 7 Petition bearing CP IB No. 203 of 2025 shall be dismissed and referred to arbitration.

14. However, the Financial Creditor has objected to the said contention of the Corporate Debtor and submitted that the subject matter of dispute in Section 7 Petition is different from the subject matter in the pending arbitration proceedings. It is thus, contended that the arbitration clause in Settlement Agreement does not have any operation on the Section 7 Petition filed before this Adjudicating Authority.

15. This brings before us a salient issue for consideration i.e., whether the arbitration clause as contained in the Settlement Agreement has any bearing on the Section 7 Petition bearing CP IB No. 203/ND/2025.

16. Upon perusal of the Settlement Agreement dated 29.04.2023, we note that the agreement concerns the restructuring of existing loan liabilities and sale obligations concerning certain immovable properties, in pursuance to the Loan Agreements and Agreement to Sell respectively, which were executed between the Vatika Group entities and the Indiabulls entities (former Debenture Holder herein).

IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

17. The Settlement Agreement makes no mention of the Debenture Trust Agreement (DTD) dated 29.07.2019 or OCDs, which are the subject matter of dispute in the Section 7 Petition filed before us. Even if we consider that the Corporate Debtor intends to treat the DTD as one of the loan agreements executed between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor, then also we are unable to accept this contention. This is because, the list of loan agreements that were executed between the parties and later formed part of the Settlement Agreement is provided in Schedule I of the said Agreement. The perusal of the Schedule I of the Settlement Agreement makes it clear that the parties while executing the concerned Settlement Agreement did not intend to treat the DTD as one of the loan agreements.

18. Further, nowhere does the Settlement Agreement deals with the properties that were mortgaged by the Corporate Debtor to secure its financial obligations towards the Debenture Holders. The properties in question in the Settlement Agreement concerns the Agreement to Sell executed by the parties.

19. We are thus, of a view that the Settlement Agreement is independent of the DTD and therefore, it does not have any bearing on the CP IB No. 203/ND/2026 filed before us. The arbitration clause as contained in the Settlement Agreement therefore, does not become applicable on the Section 7 proceedings initiated before us.

20. Even if the arbitration clause were applicable on the DTD, still this Adjudicating Authority would have been bound by Section 238 of the IBC which provides for non-obstante clause. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also

IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026 cleared the position w.r.t. the application of the said clause in its decision of Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr.5 wherein it held that the IBC has an overriding effect over the provisions of other laws. Further, this Adjudicating Authority would have been guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indus Biotech (P) Ltd. v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund (supra) which has rightly been relied upon by the Financial Creditor. In view of this, the procedure established under Section 7 of the IBC would have prevailed over the arbitration clause.

21. In view of the above, we are inclined towards dismissing the present Application.

Accordingly, IA No. 4051/2025 in CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 stands dismissed.

SD/- SD/- (REENA SINHA PURI) (MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2020. IA No. 4051/2025 IN CP IB No. 203/ND/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

COURT-V, NEW DELHI CP IB NO. 203/(ND)/2025 An Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

IN THE MATTER OF: BEACON TRUSTEESHIP LIMITED 5W, 5th Floor, The Metropolitan Building, E-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 …Applicant/Financial Creditor Versus VATIKA IT PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED Flat No. 224A, 2nd Floor, Devika Tower, 6, Nehru Place, South Delhi, New Delhi (110019) ...Respondent/Corporate Debtor

Order Delivered on: 09.10.2026 CORAM: SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MS. REENA SINHA PURI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) APPEARANCES: For the Applicant : Sr. Adv. Sudhir K Makkar, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Ms. Yashodhara Gupta, Mr. Kevin Chadha, Advs.

For the Respondent : Sr. Adv. Virender Ganda, Adv. Vishal Ganda, Adv. Ayandeb Mitra, Adv. Riya Palnitkar, Adv. Pulkit Goyal

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

ORDER 1. This Petition has been filed by Beacon Trusteeship Ltd., the Financial Creditor, under Section 7 of the IBC1 read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules2, seeking initiation of CIRP3 against Vatika IT Parks Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor for default of Rs. 233,75,19,372/-.

2. The Financial Creditor is acting in its capacity as a debenture trustee for the benefit and on behalf of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., the Debenture Holder (formerly Sammaan Capital Limited)4.

3. The Applicant submits that Corporate Debtor decided to raise funds by issuance and allotment of 12,50,000 OCDs5 of face value of Rs. 1,000 each, aggregating to a total issue value of Rs. 125,00,00,000. To comply with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, the Corporate Debtor appointed the Applicant as the debenture trustee by way of the Debenture Trusteeship Agreement dated 01.07.2019. Thereafter, a DTD6 dated 29.07.2019 was executed between the Corporate Debtor, Applicant, Mr. Anil Bhalla, and Mr. Gautam Bhalla (Promoters), and Vatika Ltd. Also, a hypothecation deed dated 29.07.2019 was executed in favour of the Applicant creating a first ranking charge of the receivables of the Corporate Debtor.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2 Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. 3 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. As per Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2026 annexed as Annexure A to the Affidavit on behalf of the Applicant 5 Optionally Convertible Debentures Debenture Trust Deed CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

4. Eventually, the OCDs aggregating to Rs. 125,00,00,000 were issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Debenture Holder against disbursal of said amount from the Debenture Holder. Subsequently, two amendments were made in the DTD in 2020 and 2024.

5. It has further been stated that Clause 10 of the DTD provided the Debenture Holder with Put Option right to exit any time upon the expiry of 60 months from the date of allotment of the OCDs, by redeeming the OCDs. Accordingly, on 07.01.2025, the Financial Creditor on the instructions of the Debenture Holder, issued a notice for exercise of put option, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to redeem the OCDs by remitting the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 233,75,19,372/- within 7 days of the date of such notice.

6. However, the Corporate Debtor issued a reply on 24.01.2025 to the said put option notice, stating that the put option cannot be exercised by the Debenture Holder till the right to convert OCDs into equity shares/CCDs7 does not expire. The Financial Creditor thus, argues that the put option was validly exercised in terms of Clause 10 of the DTD as there was no change or extension of time period w.r.t. the put option right available to the Debenture Holder; and that the Corporate Debtor has failed to remit the outstanding amount within 7 days of receipt of put option notice.

7. In view of this, it is contended that default has occurred by the Corporate Debtor, thereby triggering Clause 11 of the DTD, which grants the Compulsorily Convertible Debenture CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

Financial Creditor a right to enforce the security created pursuant to the security documents towards the repayment of the outstanding amounts. Thus, the present Petition has been filed by the Debenture Trustee against the Corporate Debtor for initiation of CIRP.

REPLY OF CORPORATE DEBTOR 8. The Corporate Debtor in its reply dated 27.08.2025 stated that the Debenture Holder exercised the conversion option vide notices dated 06.01.2021 and 05.01.2024, calling upon the Corporate Debtor to convert the entire 12,50,000 OCDs into equity shares or CCDs within 36 months and 54 months respectively. It is further stated that in terms of Clause 6 of Schedule I of the DTD, the debenture holder was deemed to be equity holders w.e.f. the date of first conversion notice i.e., 06.01.2021.

9. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor converted the OCDs into CCDs vide Board Resolution and Shareholder’s Resolution dated 28.12.2024, thereby making debenture holders an equity participant. To bring on record such conversion, MGT-14 was also filed by the Corporate Debtor with the ROC.

10. Despite such conversion, the Debenture Trustee exercised the put option right, and so the Corporate Debtor had strongly disputed the exercise of such right. As stated in reply, the Debenture Holder was not co-operating and coming forward to activate the ISIN.

11. In view of this, the Corporate Debtor has contended that upon such conversion, no liability to repay any debt exists in terms of the provisions

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026 of the IBC. Also, it is stated that the Applicant is barred by the doctrine of estoppel from exercising the put option right because the Debenture Trust Deed doesn’t envisage the exercising of such right after exercising the option for conversion.

12. Further, it is stated that the present Petition lacks basis for claiming Rs. 233,75,19,372. The Corporate Debtor accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Petition.

REJOINDER BY APPLICANT 13. It is stated that the OCDs stood converted into CCDs is misconceived in law as a lawful conversion requires completion of a series of mandatory statutory and depository actions like activation or re-activation of ISIN. However, the ISIN assigned to the subject OCDs expired on 02.07.2024 and the Corporate Debtor failed to seek prior approval of the Debenture Holder for the reactivation of the ISIN in a timely manner which led to non-conversion of OCDs into CCDs.

14. Further, it is contended that the conversion must be accompanied by fulfilment of statutory procedural requirements including allotment of converted securities and crediting of such securities in demat account of the debenture holders, along with filing of PAS-3 with the ROC. However, the Corporate Debtor has failed to demonstrate compliance with such procedural requirements. In view of this, it is argued that the OCDs retain the character of debt instruments and accordingly, constitute a financial debt within Section 5(8) of the IBC.

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

15. It is also stated that the doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable in the present matter as the Applicant never received equity or acquired any voting or dividend rights associated with the shareholding. Additionally, it is stated that the amount of default has been computed in terms of the DTD and its first amendment; and further the Corporate Debtor has failed to convert the quantum of debt with any alternative calculation. Based on this, the Applicant denies the contention of the Corporate Debtor that the amount claimed lacks justification.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 16. We have heard the counsels for the Applicant and Corporate Debtor; and have pursued the documents on record.

17. The present Petition has been filed by the Applicant on account of failure of the Corporate Debtor to redeem the debentures issued to the Debenture Holder, when the put option right was exercised by the Debenture Holder.

18. However, contention has been raised by the Corporate Debtor that put option right ceased to exist with the Debenture Holder, after it issued a notice for conversion of OCDs to CCDs. The idea behind this contention is that the debt was converted into equity upon issuance of such notice, and so no financial debt exists on part of the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has further opposed this contention.

19. This brings before us for consideration, the salient issue of whether issuance of notice of conversion by the Debenture Holder amounts to conversion of OCDs into CCDs/equity shares.

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

20. We place reliance on Section 29 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 9B of the Companies (PAS) Rules8 which provides that private limited companies must issue and hold securities in a dematerialized (electronic) form. The law therefore, bars physical holding of securities and mandates it to be held in an electronic form, for which ISIN9 number is a pre-requisite as it acts as a digital footprint for a particular class of security.

21. Admittedly, in the present matter, the ISIN of the Debenture Holder expired on 02.07.2024. Further, as a settled a position, it is the issuing company that initiates the process for application of ISIN. The same has been acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor in its reply10 to the notice for exercise of put option by the Debenture Holder. The relevant extract of its reply is hereinunder:

“In addition to the above, the Company could not have converted the said OCDs to Equity Shares/CCDs without an active ISIN Number which has expired on 02.07.2024. It is imperative to mention that the ISIN can be reactivated/ renewed only after the approval of the Debenture Holder. However, despite repeated requests and reminders, the Debenture Holder has not granted the requisite approval to enable the Company to convert the said OCDs to Equity Shares/ CCDs.”

22. It is thus, clear that the Corporate Debtor is the issuing company in the present matter which failed to renew the ISIN of the Debenture Holder. Furthermore, the argument of the Corporate Debtor that failure of the ISIN was attributed to the neglect of the Debenture Holder to grant approval for Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 International Securities Identification Number Reply dated 24.01.2025 at Annexure-R10, Page 174 of the Reply to Petition CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026 renewal of ISIN, doesn’t hold merit in the instant matter. This is because the instant matter is limited to the status of conversion of OCDs into CCDs, which vividly is not the case here.

23. During the course of proceedings, the Applicant placed reliance on the decision passed by Bench-II of NCLT, New Delhi in a matter concerning the same issue filed by the Applicant itself in Beacon Trusteeship Limited vs. Arcturus Developers Pvt. Ltd.11, wherein it was held that the right to issue put notice is not lost where ISIN is not active, even if right of conversion has been exercised by the Debenture Holder. The decision attained finality in appeal before the Hon’ble NCLAT12 and Supreme Court13.

24. In view of the legal provisions and the decisions referred above, we are also inclined towards the view that mere issuance of notice for conversion of OCDs into CCDs does not amount to conversion. Fulfillment of procedural requirements like existence of an active ISIN is a mandatory pre-requisite. In absence of the same, the securities retain its inherent nature. Therefore, the OCDs in the present case, retained the nature of debenture and did not convert into equity share.

CP (IB) No. 209/ND/2025 Arvind Kumar (Suspended Director of Arcturus Developers Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 171 of 2026 Arvind Kumar vs. Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4200/2026 CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

25. Since, the main issue before us stands settled, it is now imperative to examine if debt exists in terms of provisions of IBC and whether default has occurred to trigger invocation of Section 7 IBC.

26. The definition of ‘financial debt’ is provided in Section 5(8) of the IBC, thus, it is pertinent to place reliance on Section 5(8)(c) of the IBC, which provides that any amount raised pursuant to any debentures constitute financial debt. The said provides reads as follows:

“(c) any amount raised pursuant to any note purchase facility or the issue of bonds, notes, debentures, loan stock or any similar instrument”

27. The Clause 11 of the DTD further provides for ‘events of defaults and remedies’. It envisages non-redemption of debentures pursuant to the exercise of put option right, as one of the events to trigger default in terms of the DTD. The relevant extract of the Clause 11 is reproduced hereinunder:

“1 1.1 Events of Default The occurrence of any one of the following events shall constitute an Event of Default". i. Breach of any of the representations and warranties or covenants of the Obligors as contained in this Deed or the Definitive Agreements. ii. The Company fails to redeem the Debentures pursuant to exercise of Put Option, as envisaged in this Deed. iii. The Company utilizes the Subscription Amount for purposes other than the Purpose.”

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

28. In view of above, the non-redemption of debentures upon the issuance of put notice constitutes default in terms of Clause 11 of the DTD. Since, the debt and default stands established in the present matter, we are inclined towards admitting the present Petition.

29. Accordingly, CP IB No. 203/(ND)/2025 filed by Beacon Trusteeship Ltd., the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP against Vatika IT Parks Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, stands admitted.

30. The Financial Creditor has recommended the name of Ms. Megha Agrawal to be appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), having IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01456/2018-2019/12272. Accordingly, this Adjudicating Authority appoints Ms. Megha Agrawal, IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01456/2018-2019/12272, Email: ip.meghaagrawal@gmail.com as the IRP. The IRP is directed to file Authorization for Assignment within three days from the date of this order.

31. We direct the Applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with the IRP, namely Ms. Megha Agrawal, to meet out the expense to perform the functions assigned to her in accordance with Regulation 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016. The needful shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of this order by the Financial Creditor. The amount, however, be subject to adjustment by the Committee of CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

Creditors, as accounted for by IRP, and shall be paid back to the Financial Creditor.

32. The IRP is directed to take charge of the management of the Corporate Debtor, immediately. She is also directed to cause public announcement as prescribed under Section 15 of the Code, 2016, within three days from the date of receipt of this order, and call for submissions of claims in the manner as prescribed.

33. Moratorium is, hereby, declared and shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the CIRP, for the purposes referred to in Section 14 of the IBC. It is hereby ordered that all of the following are prohibited:

a. The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court or law, tribunal arbitration panel or other authority;

b. Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal rights or beneficial interest therein;

c. Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002);

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026 d. The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.

34. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concessions, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period.

35. The supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period. Further, if the IRP considers supply of any goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the Corporate Debtor and manage the operations of such Corporate Debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such Corporate Debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period.

36. Furthermore, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the IBC shall not apply to such transactions, agreements or other arrangement as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026 financial sector regulator or any other authority; and to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.

37. The IRP shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13(2), 15, 17 & 18 of the IBC. The Directors, Promoters or any other person associated with the management of Corporate Debtor are directed to extend all assistance and cooperation to the IRP as stipulated under Section 19 of the IBC for discharging his functions under Section 20 of the IBC.

38. In case there is any violation committed by the ex-management or any tainted/illegal transaction by ex-directors or anyone else, the Interim Resolution Professional would be at liberty to make appropriate application to this Tribunal with a prayer for passing an appropriate order. The Interim Resolution Professional shall be under duty to protect and preserve the value of the property of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ as a part of its obligation imposed by Section 20 of the Code and perform all his functions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code, Rules and Regulations.

39. The Corporate Debtor as well as the Registry is directed to send the copy of this Order to the IRP, to enable her to take charge of the assets etc. of the Corporate Debtor and comply with this order as per the provisions of the IBC.

40. The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Corporate Applicant.

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026

41. The Registry shall also communicate this Order to the Registrar of Companies, for updating the status of the Corporate Debtor on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Accordingly, this Company Petition (IB)-203/ND/2025 is allowed.

SD/- SD/- (REENA SINHA PURI) (MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

CP IB No. 203/ (ND)/2025 Order Delivered On: 09.10.2026