Lyka Labs Limited vs Modi Lifecare Industries Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Lyka Labs Ltd. A public limited company, Having its Registered Office at: 4801/B and 4802/A, GIDC Industrial Estate Ankleshwar - 393002. ...Appellant

Versus

Modi Lifecare Industries Ltd., A public limited company, Having its Registered Office address at: 27, GIDC, Opp. Creta Cold Station Near Torrent Power Substation Odhav, Ahmedabad - 382415. ...Respondent

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Rai, Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj and Mr. Ramit Rana, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Advocate

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)] The present Appeal has been filed by Lyka Labs Ltd. ("Appellant") under

Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") against the

Order dated 22nd February 2024 ("Impugned Order") passed by the Hon'ble

National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad ("Adjudicating Authority") in

Company Petition No. 141 of 2018 ("Company Petition") - Lyka Labs Limited

vs. Modi Lifecare Industries Limited.

Brief facts of the case

2. The Appellant has come in appeal against the rejection of the Company

Petition No. 141/2018. The Appellant contends that a Technical Guidance

Agreement (TG Agreement) was executed between the Appellant and the

Respondent on 14.09.2012 as per which the Respondent i.e. Modi Lifecare

Industries Ltd. had agreed to pay royalty fees for printing on its labels and

cartons that the products were manufactured under the technical guidance

of the Appellant i.e. Lyka Labs Ltd. As per Clause 1D of this Agreement, the

Respondent would be liable to pay a minimum royalty fees of ₹1 Crore per

annum or 5% of its total sales value, whichever was higher for the period

ending 2013. Furthermore, Respondent was liable to pay a minimum royalty

fees of ₹2 Crores per annum or 5% of the total sales value, whichever was

higher for the period 1st December 2013 till 30th November 2014. The

Respondent - Modi Lifecare Industries Ltd. had promised to pay a minimum

sum of ₹3 Crores to the Appellant for the period 14th September 2012 till 30th

November 2014. And if the total sales per annum were higher than the

Respondent was liable to pay 5% of the total sales invoices and this agreement

was valid for five years from the date of execution of the TG Agreement.

3. Soon thereafter, due to financial difficulty being faced by the

Respondent i.e. Modi Lifecare Industries Ltd. it was agreed that:

"a. Out of the sum of ₹1,00,00,000/- payable by 30th November 2013, a sum of ₹60,00,000/- would be deferred and paid in instalments between 1st December 2013 and 30th November 2015;

b. A minimum royalty fee of ₹1,30,00,000/- was to be paid for the period 1st December 2013 to 30th November 2014, or 5% of the total sales, whichever was higher;

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 2 of 17 c. A minimum royalty fee of ₹2,30,00,000/- was to be paid for the period 1st December 2014 to 30th November 2015, or 5% of the total sales, whichever was higher."

4. The Appellant claims that the Respondent had agreed to pay minimum

guaranteed amount for at least three years and this amount was payable

irrespective of the actual sales generated by the Respondent and was not

contingent upon the issuance of any invoices. Thereafter, Appellant followed

up with various letters demanding for balance sum outstanding towards

royalty fees as per letters dated 18.05.2017, 28.06.2017 and 25.07.2017. The

Respondent in its response dated 31.07.2017 referred to a liability of

₹63,00,000/- (approx.) for the first year when the Appellant and Respondent

had been in business. The Respondent also claimed that the TG Agreement

had been continued to be on actual basis, in complete ignorance of the letter

dated 02.08.2013. But this letter admits and acknowledges the liability to pay

the outstanding royalty dues for the Financial Year 2013-14. The Appellant

once again reiterated the terms of the letter 02.08.2013, in its letter dated

14.09.2017. The Respondent i.e. Modi Lifecare Industries Ltd. replied by letter

dated 30.09.2017 but maintained a silence of the terms of the letter dated

02.08.2013. The Respondent contended that an oral agreement had been

arrived that that royalty would be paid only on actual basis.

5. Thereafter the Appellant issued a demand notice dated 10.10.2017 in

Form-3 under Rule 5 of the Code. As there was no requirement to annex

invoices as per the TG Agreement, they were not enclosed. The Respondent

refused to accept or reply the demand notice, therefore the Appellant

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 3 of 17 approached the Adjudicating Authority vide Company Petition dated

27.02.2018.

6. The Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 20.11.2019 rejected the

Company Petition, which was challenged before this Appellate Tribunal and

by an order dated 16.03.2023, the matter was remanded back to the

Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.

7. Once again by the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority

rejected the Company Petition.

Submissions of the Appellant

8. The present dispute pertains to the Technical Guidance Agreement ("TG

Agreement") dated 14th September 2012 (@ 94-102 of the Appeal) executed

between the Appellant (Lyka Labs) and the Respondent (Modi Lifecare). Clause

10 of the TG Agreement explicitly stipulated that the Respondent would be

liable to pay a minimum royalty fee to the Appellant. The Respondent severely

defaulted on these payments, forcing the Appellant to initiate Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) via a Section 9 application under the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"). Without prejudice to any

other argument of the Appellant, it is humbly submitted that the debt towards

the Respondent arises in favor of the Appellant from the TG Agreement, and

the NCLT cannot go into the question whether by act or omission anything

else was agreed or not. It is an admitted fact that the TG Agreement was

executed and that the same is the only document executed inter-se the parties

and admittedly payments have not been made as per the TG Agreement. It is

a settled law that Court cannot override the express terms of the contract and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 4 of 17 that Commercial Contracts are to be construed strictly (Maharashtra State

Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Ratnagiri Gas & Power Ltd. 2023 SCC

Online SC 1462).

9. Even otherwise, in the present matter, there is clear acknowledgement

of debt over and above the threshold of Rs. 1 lakh, on part of Respondent, as

evident in the correspondence dated 31.07.2017 (@ 83-84 of the Appeal) and

correspondence dated 30.09.2017 (PG @ 87-88 of the Appeal), addressed by

the Respondent to the Appellant. In the said communications, the Respondent

clearly stated and admitted that the pendency of the royalty payment as

discussed was to the tune of Rs. 63 Lakhs. While the Appellant had claimed

a different, higher outstanding amount, this factual divergence clearly

establishes that the ongoing discussions and disputes between the parties

were strictly confined to the quantum of the debt, and never regarding the

existence of the debt itself. Furthermore, in the same letter, the Respondent

has acknowledged that their contention that it was agreed to not pay the fixed

Royalty Fees was never formalized. Therefore, the condition in the TG

Agreement for payment of fixed royalty fee (Clause D @ 96 of the appeal) was

never modified and the Respondent was liable to pay the fixed Royalty fee and

as per which the due payment was Rs. 5,95,04,537/- (@ 92-93 for calculation

of debt).

10. The admitted liability of Rs. 63 Lakhs is undeniably well above the

statutory threshold limit of Rs. 1 Lakh which was applicable at the time of

filing the Section 9 petition. It is a well-settled ruling under IBC jurisprudence

that the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is not required to act as a civil

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 5 of 17 court to crystalize the exact quantum of the debt. The limited statutory

mandate under Section 9 is only to ascertain whether an operational debt

exists and whether the default amount is above the Rs. 1 Lakh threshold.

Since the Respondent explicitly admitted to a pendency of Rs. 63 Lakhs, the

requirements for admission under Section 9 stand fully satisfied.

11. The Hon'ble NCLT erroneously dismissed the Appellant's Section 9

application purely on the technical ground that the Appellant failed to annex

invoices to the Demand Notice. It was pointed out that under Rule 5 of the

IBC, Form 3 does not mandate the annexing of invoices. Furthermore, the

Appellant was not contractually required to issue invoices for the Minimum

Guaranteed royalty fee under the TG Agreement.

12. Even for the instances where invoices were actually raised by Lyka Labs

(on an actual sales basis), the required payments were still not made by Modi

Lifecare. The Respondent cannot use the procedural guise of non-annexation

of invoices in Form 3 to evade insolvency when they have demonstrably

defaulted on actual invoices raised by the Appellant. The absence of invoices

in the demand notice should not have been a basis for dismissing the

Application.

13. The existence of an operational debt and a default exceeding Rs. 1 Lakh

is an admitted, undeniable position. The Adjudicating Authority overstepped

its jurisdiction by delving into the exact quantification of the debt and

mistakenly dismissed the petition on the hyper-technical ground of missing

invoices, ignoring the settled legal propositions and the unrefuted fact that

actual invoices raised were also left unpaid.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 6 of 17 Submissions of the Respondent

14. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the

order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal,

Ahmedabad Bench, whereby the application filed by the Appellant under

Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") came to be

rejected. The Impugned Order correctly records that the alleged operational

debt is disputed and incapable of triggering insolvency proceedings. The

present Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

15. The claim of the Appellant arises out of a Technical Guidance

Agreement dated 14.09.2012 executed between the parties relating to the

payment of royalty. The material on record clearly demonstrates that disputes

between the parties existed much prior to the issuance of the demand notice

dated 10.10.2017. The Respondent had addressed a detailed reply dated

31.07.2017 and 30.09.2017 disputing the royalty calculations and specifically

pointing out that royalty was payable on the basis of "actual sales" and further

attached the sample invoices issued by the appellant themselves. In the same

letter, the Appellant was asked to get in touch with the Respondent for

resolving book entry issue, which the appellant failed to do. The

correspondence exchanged between the parties further demonstrates that

royalty had consistently been calculated on an actual sales basis and the

Appellant itself had issued invoices reflecting such computation. These

documents clearly establish that the liability itself was disputed well before

the issuance of the demand notice. In such circumstances, the application

under Section 9 was rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority as the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 7 of 17 existence of a pre-existing dispute bars the initiation of insolvency

proceedings.

16. The Appellant's own case demonstrates the absence of any crystallised

operational debt. While the Appellant has alleged that invoices could not be

raised due to non-submission of sales figures by the Respondent, the

Respondent had placed on record sample invoices issued by the Appellant,

which clearly demonstrate that royalty had been charged on the basis of

actual sales. Significantly, the Appellant did not dispute the issuance of these

invoices and admitted the same during the course of proceedings before the

Tribunal. Despite such admission, the Appellant failed to annex these invoices

along with the Section 9 application and sought to proceed on the basis of

unsubstantiated claims. In the absence of a clear and undisputed liability,

the alleged claim cannot constitute an operational debt capable of triggering

insolvency proceedings.

17. In all the letters, there are different demands and no period whatsoever,

as claimed by the appellant herein has mentioned in any of the letters. The

respondent points out that within a short span of 5 months, the appellant has

claimed from the respondent as alleged balance royalty fee 3 different

amounts, namely: (a) during the meeting on 03.04.2017 Rs. 63 lakh approx.

(b) the in letter dated 18.05.2017, 28.06.2017 and 25.07.2017 Rs.

84,72,740/-; and (c) in the demand notice dated 14.09.2017 and 10.10.2017

Rs. 5,95,04,537/- which is beyond comprehension.

18. The figures as mentioned in letters mentioned in letters at serial (b)

above do not match any figure as mentioned in demand notices as mentioned

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 8 of 17 in serial (c). Figure mentioned in serial (a) finds no mention in any of the

correspondences, nor in Annexure I of the demand notice. The appellant is

just trying to extort money from the Respondent, which he is not entitled to

in law.

19. The Appellant's pleadings further demonstrate that the claim is

essentially in the nature of damages arising from an alleged breach of

contract. In Form-5 filed before the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant

relied upon Sections 37 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to support

its claim. A claim under Section 73 of the Contract Act is in the nature of

unliquidated damages arising from breach of contractual obligations. Such

claims necessarily require adjudication of contractual rights and liabilities

and cannot be treated as an operational debt within the meaning of Sections

3(11) and 5(21) of the IBC. Insolvency proceedings are not intended to

determine claims for unliquidated damages, and the Appellant's attempt to

invoke the IBC for such purposes is therefore misconceived.

20. The demand notice dated 10.10.2017 issued by the Appellant is also

legally defective. The Appellant issued the notice in Form-3 but failed to annex

documents evidencing the existence of operational debt. Where the claim

arises from invoices, the operational creditor is required to issue the demand

notice together with such invoices or supporting documents. In the present

case, the Appellant admittedly had issued invoices in the past but deliberately

chose not to annex them with the demand notice. The failure to comply with

the statutory requirement renders the demand notice itself defective, and the

proceedings under Section 9 were therefore rightly rejected.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 9 of 17

21. A substantial part of the claim sought to be raised by the Appellant

relates to the period between 2012 and March 2015, whereas the application

under Section 9 was filed only on 08.03.2018. In view of Section 238A of the

IBC read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, such claims are clearly

barred by limitation and could not have formed the basis of insolvency

proceedings.

22. The Appellant has further attempted to argue that since the Respondent

had allegedly admitted liability exceeding ₹1 lakh, the petition ought to have

been admitted. This submission is wholly misconceived. The monetary

threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the IBC is merely jurisdictional and

does not dispense with the fundamental requirement under Section 9 that the

operational debt must be undisputed. Even assuming, without admitting,

that some amount may have been payable, the existence of a substantial

dispute regarding the underlying claim clearly bars the initiation of insolvency

proceedings.

23. The present proceedings are therefore nothing but an attempt to convert

a contractual dispute into insolvency proceedings for the purpose of recovery.

It is well settled that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be invoked

as a substitute for recovery proceedings and cannot be used as a pressure

tactic to enforce disputed contractual claims.

24. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is not intended to penalise

solvent and financially sound companies, nor is it meant to be invoked as a

coercive mechanism for recovery of disputed dues. The Respondent is a going

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 10 of 17 concern, actively carrying on its business operations, and its financial

statements, placed on record, clearly demonstrate that it possesses assets far

exceeding the alleged dues claimed by the Appellant. There is no material

whatsoever to suggest that the Respondent is unable to pay its debts or is

commercially insolvent. In such circumstances, the invocation of insolvency

proceedings is wholly misconceived and contrary to the very object of the

Code, which is the resolution of insolvency and not recovery or enforcement

of disputed claims. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd v.

Union of India has emphasised that the IBC is a beneficial legislation aimed

at the resolution of stressed assets and not intended to be used as a substitute

for debt recovery proceedings. The present attempt of the Appellant to push a

solvent and operational company into insolvency proceedings is therefore an

abuse of the process of law and deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.

25. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order dated

22.02.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal rejecting the

Section 9 application is fully justified and does not warrant any interference

by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. The present Appeal is devoid of merit and

deserves to be dismissed and uphold the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by

the Adjudicating Authority, along with such further orders as this Hon'ble

Tribunal may deem fit in the interests of justice.

Appraisal

26. We have heard both sides and also perused the material placed on

record.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 11 of 17

27. We find that Technical Guidance Agreement has been signed between

the Lyka Labs Ltd. and Modi Lifecare Industries Ltd. A minimum royalty fees

was to be paid for which the records exist. The Respondent has also

acknowledged / admitted the liability of about ₹63,00,000/- at page 83 in the

APB in the letter dated 31st July 2017, which is a letter from the respondent

Modi Lifecare Industries Ltd. to M/s Lyka Labs, the appellant.

28. The impugned order has returned a finding that the demand notice

under section 8 issued by the appellant-operational creditor upon the

corporate debtor was not a valid demand notice, as the appellant had not

supplied the respondent-CD with a copy of the various invoices for the

amount claimed in the application. The respondent also argues on the similar

line. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant has been that if the

transaction does not involve the generation of invoices, then only the

documents which are required to prove the existence of the operational debt

and the amount in default are required to be submitted. In this case, the

terms of the technical guidance agreement dated 14th September 2012, made

it clear that invoices would not always be an essential part of the transaction.

The respondent was liable to pay a minimum amount towards royalty fees for

every period of 12 months or 5% of its total sales value, whichever was higher.

We also note that there were no terms under the technical guidance

agreement which made it mandatory for the appellant to raise an invoice at

the end of every period/block of 12 months, even for the minimum royalty

fees payable. We note that the computation of the royalty fee payable by the

respondent emanates from the technical guidance agreement itself. Further,

the technical guidance agreement did not cast any liability upon the appellant Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 12 of 17 to raise invoices upon the respondent for making it liable to pay the minimum

royalty fees to the appellant. We therefore find that the contention that the

demand notice was defective because invoices had not been annexed is

incorrect, and the finding of the adjudicating authority relating to this issue

cannot be sustained.

29. The Adjudicating Authority has relied upon Rule 5 of the IBBI

(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rule 2016 and has concluded that,

since invoices were not enclosed, therefore the application is defective. The

relevant rule is extracted as below:

"Demand notice by operational creditor (1) An operational creditor shall deliver to the corporate debtor the following documents namely

a) a demand notice in Form 3; or

b) a copy of an invoice together with a notice in Form 4. (2) The demand notice or the copy of the invoice demanding payment referred to in sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Code, may be delivered to the corporate debtor by either of the following methods:

a) at the registered office by hand, or by registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due; or

b) by electronic mail to a whole-time director, designated partner, or key managerial personnel (if any) of the corporate debtor. (3) A copy of the demand notice or the invoice demanding payment served under this rule by an operational creditor shall also be filed with an information utility, if any. "

A plain reading of the above rule indicates that it is not necessary that the

copies of the invoice have to be attached. A copy of the demand notice which

clearly establishes the operational debt or the demand is more than sufficient.

In this case, the technical guidance agreement which allowed payment to be

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 13 of 17 made by the operational creditor was more than sufficient, and therefore the

argument that invoices were not attached is unsustainable.

30. The adjudicating authority has also relied on the judgment of this

Appellate Tribunal in M/s Agarwal Vineers vs. Fundtonic Service Pvt. Ltd.,

Co. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 968 of 2020, wherein it was held that,

unless the operational creditor, along with its application, furnishes a copy of

the invoices, the bank statements, and the financial accounts, the

adjudicating authority is empowered to reject an incomplete application. We

find that the facts in the present case are distinguishable, as the demand is

based on the technical guidance agreement, and even if the invoices were not

raised, the technical guidance provided for the payment to be made at

frequent intervals. Therefore, we find that the above judgment is not

applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

31. The appellant has also brought to our notice that it was unable to raise

invoices, as the respondent failed to fulfill its obligation of furnishing sales

figures duly certified by a chartered accountant to the appellant. The

appellant also brings to our notice that the appellant was in the practice of

regularly raising invoices upon the respondent based on actual sales figures.

When the sales figures were not being shared, the appellant had not been able

to raise invoices. The main contention of the appellant is that under the

technical guidance agreement, the respondent was liable to pay a minimum

amount towards royalty fees to the appellant or 5% of its total sales value,

whichever was higher.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 14 of 17

32. The appellant also brings to our notice that there is a claim that has

arisen in favor of the appellant, as understood under the Code. This claim has

given rise to an operational debt and this debt is a duly crystallized. It also

brings to our notice that the appellant has referred to Section 37 and/or 73

of the Indian Contract in their Section 9 petition. But, this does not alter these

incontrovertible conclusions.

33. The appellant has also relied upon Consolidated Constructions

Consortium Ltd. versus Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 7

Supreme Court cases 164, in which it has been clearly ruled that "..a

Demand Notice for an Operational Debt by an Operational Creditor does not

necessarily need to be accompanied by an invoice, but it may be sent where

such debt arises under a "provision of law or contract or other document" and

for which documents can be attached along with the Demand Notice." (para 29).

This judgment fully supports the case of the Appellant and negates the

argument which has been pursued by both the respondent as well as has

been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority.

34. The appellant has also relied upon another judgment of this Appellate

Tribunal in Neeraj Jain v. Cloud Walker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

and another [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1354 of 2019]. In this

judgment, it was held that: ".. it is also made clear that, for filing an application

under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, in case the

demand notice is delivered in Form 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, then the submission of a

copy of the invoice along with the application in Form 5 is not a mandatory

requirement, provided the documents to prove the existence of operational debt Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 15 of 17 and the amount in default are attached with the application." [Para 49]. This

judgment also supports the case of the appellant and clearly establishes that

the invoices are not necessary and in the present facts and the circumstances

of the case the technical guidance agreement helps to establish the

operational debt.

35. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that

in the present Section 9 proceedings, except for accounts reconciliation for

which the correspondence was going on between the two parties, there is no

pre-existing dispute between them. The Respondent contends that the royalty

fees was to be paid 5% on the actual basis and furthermore the Appellant has

not provided any invoices to back up his claim. This has been refuted by the

Appellant by saying that the TG Agreement did not provide for any invoices

and the original agreement had fixed royalty fees to be paid. We also note that

the respondent, in its letter dated 31st July 2017, has conveyed to the

appellant that, with reference to the demand of Rs. 63 lakhs approximately

the CFO or auditor could be in touch with them and therefore, there is an

acceptance of the amount of rupees 63 lakhs, approximately.

36. We further do not find that the appellant has filed the petition to harass

and/or embarrass and/or humiliate the respondent, as the petition is based

on material facts as noted by us here in. We find that the respondent has not

disputed that there was a default of an operational debt which is in excess of

Rs 1 lakh. Further, the Respondent has proceeded on the basis that the

Section 9 petition is liable to be dismissed because copies of demand invoices

were not attached with the demand notice issued under Section 8 of the Code.

We find that both these things have been found to be not sustainable, and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 16 of 17 thus the facts and the legal position is are very much against the respondent.

Further, we find no justification in the argument of the respondent that the

appellant was not very clear vis-a-vis the alleged amount due and payable by

the respondent. The primary issue which arises for consideration in the

adjudication of a Section 9 petition is whether or not there has been a default

on an operational debt in excess of Rs 1 lakh prior to an increase in the

threshold to Rs 1 crore.

37. Thus. we find that debt and default is admitted. And in turn we find

that the conditions for initiation of Section 9 i.e. the existence of the debt and

default is satisfied. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the Appeal.

Order

38. In the facts and circumstances and as analyzed here in earlier, the

impugned order is set aside and the Respondent is permitted to deposit the

claim amount of ₹63,00,000/- within next 30 days of the pronouncement of

this order and in case, it is not paid the Adjudicating Authority may issue the

orders for admitting the Respondent into insolvency under Section 9 of the

Code. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of and all related IAs are disposed

of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) New Delhi.

May 19, 2026.

pawan

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 726 of 2024 17 of 17