S. Sudeep vs Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd & Anr

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH CHENNAI APPELLATE JURISDICTION T.A. No. 39 of 2021 (Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020)

[Arising out of Impugned Order dated 7th February, 2020 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority'/National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, Kochi in IBA/51/KOB/19]

IN THE MATTER OF:

S. Sudeep S/o K.P.S. Nair, Director of Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd. TC/7/1735, Nandanam, Temple Lane Rishimangalam, Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695035 ...Appellant

V

1. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited Dhanalakshmi Building, Naickanal, Thrissur - 680001, Kerala. Also at: 2nd Floor, Karimpanal Arcade, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram - 695023 ...Respondent No.1

2. Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd TC/7/1407, Sut Royal Hospital, Kochulloor, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011 ...Respondent No.2

3. Raju P.K., Resolution Professional CGNRA-9, Kodamassery Line, Chalikkavattom, Vennala P.O., Kochi, Jeraka-682028 ...Respondent No. 3

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 1 of 17 Present: For Appellant : Mr. Deep Bisht, Advocate For Mr. Asish Makhija, Advocate Mr. Akanksha Vasudev, Advocate Ms. Richa Singh, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, Advocate For Mr. P V Dinesh, Advocate

For Resolution Professional : Mr. P.K. Raju, Advocate

M. Venugopal, J:

The Appellant S. Sudeep has preferred the instant T.A. No. 39 of 2021

(Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020) being aggrieved against

the order dated 7th February, 2020 passed by the 'Adjudicating

Authority'/National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, Kochi in

IBA/51/KOB/19 (filed by the Respondent No. 1/Bank/Applicant under Section

7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'IBC').

2. The 'Adjudicating Authority' while passing the Impugned Order dated 7th

February, 2020 in IBA/51/KOB/19, amongst other things, observed that the

Application was filed in the capacity of 'Financial Creditor' for final debt of Rs.

14,24,90,488/- (Rupees Fourteen Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand

Four Hundred Eighty Eight) recoverable from the 'Corporate Debtor' viz.,

Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd and that the documents produced

on record proved that disbursement of various loan facilities granted by the

'Financial Creditor' to the 'Corporate Debtor' and consequently in the light of

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 2 of 17 facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that existence of 'debt' and

'default' was reasonably established by the 'Financial Creditor' as a major

constituent for admission of a petition and admitted the petition by declaring

moratorium etc.

APPELANT'S CONTENTIONS:

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant the 'Corporate Debtor'/

Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd engaged in the business of 'Health

Care Services' for its expansion under the dream project of Multi-Specialties

Cancer Block approached Respondent No. 1/'Financial Creditor' for financial

support in the form of loan and submitted relevant documents. The Respondent

No. 1/Bank on the request of the 'Corporate Debtor' and upon consideration of

relevant documents sanctioned the credit facility through a sanctioned letter

dated 13.02.2015.

4. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that a Master Credit Agreement

dated 31.03.2015 was executed by the Appellant Company in favour of

Respondent No. 1 at Trivandrum. Besides this a Term Loan Agreement dated

31.03.2015 and Overdraft Cash Credit dated 31.03.2015 and other documents

were executed between the parties.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings to the notice of this Tribunal

that a 'Demand Promissory Notes' dated 31.03.2015 was executed by the

'Corporate Debtor' for Rs. 1 Crore and 15 Crore to and in favour of the 'Financial

Creditor'. That apart, a 'Corporate Guarantee Deed' dated 31.03.2015 by M/s T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 3 of 17 Dr. K.N. Pai, Heart Foundation, a Trust in favour of the Respondent No.

1/Financial Creditor and further that the Deed Guarantor was executed by Mr.

Bharat Chandra C, Advocate P.A. Ahmed and Dr. Ashalatha, Directors in favour

of Financial Creditor.

6. It is the stand of the Appellant that the Sanction Letter dated 26.05.2015

issued by the Respondent No. 1/Bank ('Financial Creditor') in favour of the

'Corporate Debtor' was amended as regards amendment of the securities to be

furnished and that it was approved on 30.03.2015, was released by the

Respondent No. 1/Bank on 31.07.2015 in trench. In fact, Respondent No. 1

sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,76,12,971/- out of Rs. 15 Crores due to which the

funds of the dream project of Super Specialty Cancer Block came to a standstill.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the loan amount of

the 'Corporate Debtor' was classified as Non-Performing Asset (In short 'NPA')

through letter dated 02.05.2016 issued by the Respondent No.1/Bank.

8. A Notice dated 22.07.2017 was also issued under Section 13(2) of the

SARFAESI Act by the Respondent NO. 1/Bank as a 'Financial Creditor' and that

the 'Possession Notice' under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act against the

'Corporate Debtor' and Guarantors was issued on 09.01.2017 by the Bank. In

this connection it is relevant to point out that O.A. No. 156/2018 was filed by

the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and the same is

pending. As a matter of fact, the 'Corporate Debtor' had addressed a letter dated

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 4 of 17 31.07.2017 to the 'Financial Creditor' i.e. the Respondent No. 1/Bank with a

request to withhold SARFAESI proceedings.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to submit that a meeting

was convened on 25.05.2017 by the 'Corporate Debtor' and other lenders in the

presence of the Hon'ble Finance Minster of Kerala to discuss the restructuring

of loan and repayment of arrears and later on, a meeting took place on

15.06.2017 to provide a reasonable opportunity to the 'Corporate Debtor' to

settle the arrears of the debt. A true copy of 'One Time Settlement' (in short 'OTS')

dated 06.12.2018 was sent by the 'Corporate Debtor' to the Financial Creditor

and the Respondent No. 1/Bank replied on 12.12. 2018 by expressing its interest

in the proposal submitted by the 'Corporate Debtor'.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the 'Corporate Debtor'

had brought for OTS of credit facility and proposed a final offer of Rs. 8.15 Crores

as full and final settlement and the said settlement proposal was dated

11.01.2019, which was approved by the Respondent No. 1/'Financial Creditor'

and a Sanction Letter dated 22.01.2019 was approved by the Respondent No.

1/Bank which was accepted by the 'Corporate Debtor' but sought time to pay

5% of the advance.

11. It transpires that the Respondent No. 1/Bank had filed, before the

'Adjudicating Authority' an Application in IBA/51/KOB/2019 (under Section 7

of IBC) seeking to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding' (in short

'CIRP') against the 'Corporate Debtor'/Trivandrum International Health Services T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 5 of 17 Ltd wherein it claimed a total default sum of Rs. 14,24,90,488/- as on

30.11.2019 specifying the date of default as 30.06.2019.

12. It is brought to the fore that the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds

executed by Trivandrum International Health Services Limited, 'Corporate

Debtor' with respect to 80 cents in Re. Sy No. 588/6, 6.25 Cents in Re. Sy. No.

588/26 and 100 Cents in Re. Sy No. 588/6 in favour of SBT and Memorandum

of Deposit of Title Deeds executed by Dr. K.N. Pai Heart Foundation with respect

to 1.60 Areas in favour of the Financial Creditor. With respect to 124 Cents

covered by Sale Deed No. 4460/2012, the equitable mortgage was created in

favour of KFC.

13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Application in

IBA/51/KOB/2019 filed by Respondent No. 1/Bank (Applicant) before the

'Adjudicating Authority' was barred by limitation as per Article 137 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, Accounts of the 'Corporate Debtor' was classified as 'NPA'

on 30.05.2016, which is beyond three years, prior to the date of filing of the

Application on 10.12.2019.

14. According to the Appellant, the whole reason for failing to pay debt on time

is the failure on the part of the 'Financial Creditor' to release loan on time.

Further, in the instant Appeal, a plea is taken is that the Respondent No. 1/Bank

cannot impose/levy exorbitant interest (including penal interest) for the loan

disposed against the 'Corporate Debtor', which is against the RBI Rules and the

same cannot be added as default. T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 6 of 17 15. The other plea taken on behalf of the Appellant is that the Section 7

Application before the 'Adjudicating Authority' was not maintainable because of

the fact that against a loan disbursed to the 'Corporate Debtor', the exorbitant

interest and penal interest were added and the same cannot be termed as an

amount in default.

FIRST RESPONDENT/BANK SUBMISSIONS:

16. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Bank submits that the

'Corporate Debtor' had addressed a letter dated 11.01.2019 to the Respondent

No. 1/Bank proposing a refund of OTS Plan Rs. 1.58 Crore as Full and Final

Settlement which is an 'acknowledgment' within the meaning of Section 18 of

the Limitation Act fresh period of limitation for filing an Application under

Section 7 of IBC.

17. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Bank projects an argument

that the 'Corporate Debtor' after its account was classified as 'NPA' on

30.05.2016 and before the lapse of the limitation period had other

communications which constitutes an 'acknowledgment' for the purpose of

Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Added further, a meeting was convened

by the 'Corporate Debtor', 'Financial Creditor' and other lenders in the presence

of Hon'ble Finance Minister, Kerala, to discuss on 'Restructuring' of the loan

facility and repayment of arrears and thereafter, on 06.12.2018, sent a letter

proposing OTS of credit facility, which was approved by the Respondent No.

1/Bank in principle as per Sanction Letter dated 22.01.2019. In this regard, the

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 7 of 17 Learned Counsel of the Respondent No. 1/Bank contends that these facts

clinchingly indicate an 'acknowledgment' for the purpose of Article 137 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 giving rise a fresh period of limitation, to be reckoned from

the date of 'acknowledgment'.

18. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Bank to lend support to

the contention that the revised OTS proposed is clearly acknowledgment of debt,

refers to the decision of this 'Tribunal' in 'Gauri Prasad Goenka Vs. Punjab

National Bank & Anr.' (vide Company appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 28 of 2018

wherein at paragraph - 10 it is held as under:

...

"10. That apart, there is acknowledgment of the outstanding

debt on the part of the Corporate Debtor, a fact not disputed by

the Corporate Debtor. This comes to fore from the letter dated

4th August, 2018 emanating from the Corporate Debtor and

addressed to the Financial Creditor wherein the Corporate

Debtor agreed to settle all outstanding dues of the Financial

Creditor on One Time Settlement (OTS) basis (refer pages 692-

693 Vol. III of the Appeal Paper Book). This is a clear

acknowledgment of the outstanding debt in writing and the

Corporate Debtor cannot wriggle out the liability so

acknowledge. It is not in controversy that on the date of such

acknowledgment the debt was not time barred and the

Insolvency Resolution. Process was triggered with the period of

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 8 of 17 limitation in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, computed

from such date..."

19. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 cites decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Laxmi Pat Surana Vs. Union of India & Anr." (vide Civil

Appeal No. 2734 of 2020) wherein at paragraph 37 it is observed and held as

under;

...

"37. Ordinarily, upon declaration of the loan account/debt as NPA that date can be reckoned as the date of default to enable the financial creditor to initiate action under Section 7 of the Code. However, Section 7 comes into play when the corporate debtor commits "default". Section 7, consciously uses the expression "default" - not the date of notifying the loan account of the corporate person as NPA. Further, the expression 'default' has been defined in Section 3(12) to mean 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 the case may be. In cases where the corporate person had offered guarantee in respect of loan transaction, the right of the financial creditor to initiate action against such entity being a corporate debtor (corporate guarantor), would get triggered the moment the principal borrower commits default due to non-payment of debt. Thus, when the principal borrower and/or the (corporate) guarantor admit and acknowledge their liability after declaration of NPA but before the expiration of three years therefrom including the fresh period of limitation due to (successive) acknowledgments, it is not possible to extricate them from the renewed limitation

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 9 of 17 accruing due to the effect of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Section 18 of the Limitation Act gets attracted the moment acknowledgment in writing signed by the party against whom such right to initiate resolution process under Section 7 of the Code enures. Section 18 of the Limitation Act would come into play every time when the principal borrower and/or the corporate guarantor (corporate debtor), as the case may be, acknowledge their liability to pay the debt. Such acknowledgment, however, must be before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation including the fresh period of limitation due to acknowledgement of the debt, from time to time, for institution of the proceedings under Section 7 of the Code. Further the acknowledgment must be a liability in respect of which the financial creditor can initiate action under Section 7 of the Code."

20. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 refers to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) Vs. Shiva

Kumar Reddy & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2020 wherein at paragraph114,

116, 141 & 142 it is observed as under:

..

"116. In Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal and Anr. (supra) where this Court speaking through Nariman J relied, inter alia, on Sesh Nath Singh (supra) and Laxmi Pat Surana (supra) and held that the question of applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the IBC was no longer was integra.'

141. Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot also be construed with pedantic rigidity in relation to proceedings under the IBC. This Court sees no reason T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 10 of 17 why an offer of One Time Settlement of a live claim, made within the period of limitation, should not also be construed as an acknowledgment to attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra) cited by Mr. Shivshankar, this Court had no occasion to consider any proposal for one time settlement.

142. To sum up, in our considered opinion an application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgment of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years"

21. In pith and substance, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the First

Respondent/Bank is that the instant appeal preferred by the Appellant is parse

not maintainable in the eye of law.

REPLY OF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR:

22. Before the 'Adjudicating Authority', the Managing Director of the

'Corporate Debtor'/ Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd had filed a

Reply by taking the stand that the 'Adjudicating Authority' has jurisdiction only

where loans were availed by the Company and that one of the properties involved

in the transaction is a Trust property. In short, the stand of the 'Corporate

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 11 of 17 Debtor' was that Trust property cannot be proceeded with by the 'Adjudicating

Authority' in Insolvency Resolution Process and further that the Company had

availed Long Term Fund of Rs. 31.22 Crores from Dr. K.N. Pai and that the assets

of the Company include the funds availed from the Trust.

23. The 'Corporate Debtor' took a stand before the 'Adjudicating Authority'

that the Respondent No. 1/'Financial Creditor' had approached the Debt

Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A. No. 156 of 2018 and that the 'Corporate

Debtor' is very much prejudiced because of the plurality of the proceedings

initiated in numerous foras.

Appraisal:

24. As seen from Section 7 Application in IBA/51/KOB/19, filed by the

Respondent No. 1/Bank, before the 'Adjudicating Authority', on 10.12.2019, it

is evident that the Respondent No. 1/Bank had issued sanction letter dated

30.03.2015 in favour of the 'Corporate Debtor' approving 'Cash Credit Facility'

of Rs. 1.00 Crore and Term Loan Facility of Rs. 15.00 Crores subject to the terms

and conditions thereof and the said sanction was amended by the letters dated

25.05.2015 and 08.07.2015 respectively. Also, that between the Parties, there is

an agreement in respect of the loan and 'Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds'

was executed.

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 12 of 17

25. In respect of the 'Loan Promissory Notes' were issued by the 'Corporate

Debtor' for Rs. 1 Crore and Rs. 15 Crore to and in favour of the Respondent No.

1/Bank ('Financial Creditor').

26. There is no denial of the fact that because of the default committed by the

'Corporate Debtor' in regard to the repayment of Credit Facility in violation of the

sanctioned terms, loan documents, the Respondent No. 1/Bank had classified

the accounts of the 'Corporate Debtor' on NPA on 30.05.2016. It cannot be

ignored that the Respondent No. 1/Bank, after issuing 'Demand Notice' and also

issued Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the 'Corporate Debtor'

and 'Guarantors' requiring them to repay the dues before 22.09.2016. Even after

providing reasonable opportunity to the 'Corporate Debtor' to settle the arrears

and to keep on hold the SARFAESI Act proceeding, which decision was taken on

15.06.2017 at the Meeting of 'lenders' there was no concrete proposal from the

'Corporate Debtor', the Respondent No. 1/Bank was constrained to file O.A. No.

156 of 2018 on 26.05.2018 to recover its dues.

27. A mere running of the eye of the OTS proposal dated 06.12.2018,

12.12.2018, 11.01.2019 addressed to the Chief Manager of the Respondent No.

1/Bank, Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd unerringly pointed out

that the 'Corporate Debtor' had admitted its liability and had prayed for the OTS

of Credit Facility and mooted an abnormal offer of Rs. 8.15 Crores on 11.01.2019

towards the 'Full and Final Settlement' of all the 'outstanding liabilities' with the

'Bank', which was approved by the Bank as per its Sanction Letter dated

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 13 of 17 22.01.2019 which was accepted by the 'Corporate Debtor' on 24.01.2019. But

the fact of the matter is that the 'Corporate Debtor' had prayed for time till

20.02.2019 for payment of 5% advance sum under the OTS scheme and indeed,

the 'Corporate Debtor' in accordance with the OTS was to repay the liabilities of

the Respondent No. 1/Bank by 30.06.2019. Therefore, in the instant case, the

default is on 30.06.2019.

28. At this stage, this 'Tribunal' had gone through the contents of the letter

dated 11.01.2019 (One Time Settlement offered for credit facility) of the

'Corporate Debtor'/ Trivandrum International Health Services Ltd addressed to

the Chief Manager of the Respondent No. 1/Bank which exhibits that a request

was made for fixing 'OTS' amount as Rs. 8.15 Crores, which shall be fulfilled

within 180 days of sanction, 20% of this amount to be paid within 90 days of the

sanction and 5% will be paid on receiving sanction and the balance 15% within

90 days etc.

29. To put it precisely, the Respondent No. 1/Bank through its letter dated

22.01.2019 (without prejudice) had addressed a communication (without

prejudice) to the Managing Director of the 'Corporate Debtor' inter alia, stating

that in-principle sanction was only valid upon payment of 5% of the OTS and as

per the cut off dated 29.01.2019 and further that this sanction letter was issued

by it without prejudice to any right and remedies available to it and it reserves

its right to proceed accordingly.

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 14 of 17

30. It is to be pointed out that an 'acknowledgement' must relate to a present

subsisting liability. The word 'occurring' in Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963

means admission of the truth pertaining to one's own liability, which in turn may

be expressed or employed.

31. In law, a writing to be 'acknowledgment' of liability must involve an

admission of a subsisting jural relation between the parties and conscious

confirmation of an intention of affirming such relation in regard to an 'existing

liability'.

32. No wonder, an 'acknowledgement' is an admission made by the 'maker'

that there is a 'debt' to be paid by him, either to the recipient of the

communication/letter or to other individual, on whose behalf the said

communication is received.

33. In so far as filing of O.A. No. 156 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery

Tribunal, Ernakulam (in short 'DRT') by the Respondent No. 1/Bank is

concerned, it is to be pointed out that the filing of an Application under Section

7 of the IBC by the Bank ('Financial Creditor') is not barred.

34. In regard to the plea that when on behalf of the Appellant Section 7

Application filed, Respondent No. 1/Bank is barred by limitation, the same is

negatived by this 'Tribunal' in view of the fact that the 'Application' was filed on

10.12.2019 and that the liabilities of the Respondent No. 1/Bank are to be repaid

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 15 of 17 by the 'Corporate Debtor' by 30.06.2019 (the occurrence of date of default being

30.06.2019) which is well within 3 years' period.

35. It is well settled that it is not for the 'Adjudicating Authority' to arrive at

the quantum of the outstanding amount due to be paid by the 'Corporate Debtor'

to the 'Financial Creditor'. It is to be remembered that IBC, 2016 is not a 'Debt

Enforcement Procedure'.

36. To put it precisely, the 'proceedings' under IBC are summary in nature

and not an adversary one. Suffice it for this 'Tribunal' to relevantly point out that

the 'proceedings' under IBC are not like that of a regular 'Civil Suit'. As such, the

aspects of the exorbitant interest, penal interest, purportedly imposed on the

'Corporate Debtor' by the Respondent No. 1/Bank are not gone into by this

'Tribunal' in 'Appeal'.

37. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussions and this 'Tribunal' taking note

of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in accumulative manner,

comes to a resultant conclusion that the Debt of the 'Corporate Debtor' and

'Default' committed by it were proved and that the 'Adjudicating Authority' on

being satisfied with the disbursement of various loans to the 'Corporate Debtor'

by the Bank came to the right conclusion of admitting the 'Application' and

declaring Moratorium etc. which in the considered opinion of this Tribunal are

free from any patent illegalities. Consequently, the Appeal is devoid of merits.

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 16 of 17 RESULT:

In fine, T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of

2020 is dismissed. No costs. Connected I.A. No. 1123 of 2020 seeking stay of the

Impugned Order dated 07.02.2020 of the 'Adjudicating Authority' is closed.

[Justice M. Venugopal] Member(Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) 29th November, 2021

Akc

T.A. No. 39 of 2021/Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 427 of 2020 Page 17 of 17