Sanjeev Kumar Sharma vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited & Anr

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 909 of 2023

[Arising out of order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench I, Kolkata in IA (IBC) 1184/KB/2022 and CP(IB) No. 367/KB/2021]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Shareholder and suspended Director of Dadheech Infrastructures Private Limited, CK-271, Salt Lake City, Sector-II, Kolkata 700091 ...Appellant

Versus

SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. Viswakarma, 86C, Topsia Road (South), Kolkata - 700046, West Bengal ...Respondent No.1

Mr. Soumendra Poddar Interim Resolution Professional of Dadheech Infrastructure Private Limited 1/427, Gariahat Road (South), 4th Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700 068 ...Respondent No.2

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Mr. Dhruv Surana, Mr. Arya Hardik, Mr. Rajeev Ahuja, Advocates

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Kohli, Ms. Anjali Singh, Mr. Mridul Suri, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Mr. Deeptanshu Chandra, Advocates

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

1 JUDGMENT

[Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)]

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 ("IBC" in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated

26.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order") passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench I,

Kolkata) in CP(IB) No. 367/KB/2021 and IA (IBC) No. 1184/KB/2022. By the

impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the petition under

Section 7 of the IBC and allowed the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process ("CIRP" in short) of the Corporate Debtor - M/s Dadheech

Infrastructures Private Limited. Aggrieved by this impugned order, the present

appeal has been preferred by the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor.

2. Putting briefly the facts of the case, the Corporate Debtor had a business

relationship with the Financial Creditor, SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. -

Respondent No.1 since 2007. The Financial Creditor was a non-banking financial

company which was admitted under CIRP on 08.10.2021 following which an

Administrator was appointed. During the course of their business relationship,

several loan agreements were signed following which funds were transferred by

the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. Claiming that an amount of

Rs.131,35,08,475/- was due from the Corporate Debtor and remained unpaid

as on 12.08.2021, a Section 7 application was filed by Mr. Projoy Chatterjee on

behalf of the Financial Creditor vide CP(IB) No. 367/2021 (hereinafter referred to

as the 'main petition') showing date of default as 23.08.2021. The Financial

Creditor in the meantime was admitted into CIRP and was taken over by the

Administrator. Later when Mr. Projoy Chatterjee, the authorized signatory of the

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

2 Financial Creditor, in respect of the main petition retired from service, the

Administrator appointed another person, Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha by a special PoA

and IA(IB) No.430/2022 was filed by the Financial Creditor to re-sign, re-verify

and make formal amendments to the main petition. This was allowed by the

Adjudicating Authority on 01.07.2022. However, vide the same order, the

Corporate Debtor was also permitted to take all available defences including the

maintainability of the main petition. IA No. 1184/2022 was then filed by the

Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority to decide on the

maintainability of the main petition on the broad ground that despite the

amendments made, the main application continued to remain defective, invalid

and not maintainable. The matter came up for hearing before the Adjudicating

Authority on 05.12.2022 and was reserved for orders. The orders were

pronounced on 26.06.2023 in which the main petition CP(IB) No. 367/2021 was

allowed and the Corporate Debtor was admitted to CIRP. The Corporate Debtor

is aggrieved that though hearing was done only in respect of IA No1184/2022

regarding the maintainability of the main petition and not for the main petition

but surprisingly the order was passed on the main petition admitting the

Corporate Debtor to the rigours of CIRP. Hence the Corporate Debtor has invoked

the appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the course

of their business relationship, a sum of Rs.90,67,72,108/- was transferred by

the Financial Creditor to the Appellant against which a sum of Rs.

99,91,99,247/- was already repaid. However, the Financial Creditor by making

certain fraudulent entries on blank agreements have dishonestly claimed that

an amount of Rs.131,35,08,475/- was due and filed a Section 7 application. It

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

3 was asserted that no dues were payable and that a sum of Rs 9 crore had been

paid in excess.

4. It was further contended that the main petition was not maintainable

because of discrepancy in the Power of Attorney ("PoA" in short). It was stated

that the main petition was signed and verified by Mr. Projoy Chatterjee on the

basis of a PoA dated 31.03.2021 executed by the Financial Creditor. However,

since the Financial Creditor had been admitted to CIRP and was taken over by

the Administrator, the PoA signed by the erstwhile management had become

non-maintainable. It was further pointed out that acknowledging the fact that

the main petition was not maintainable, Respondent No.1 have themselves

instituted IA(IB) No.430/2022 to re-sign and re-verify the main petition. While

admitting that the Adjudicating Authority while deciding this matter passed an

order on 01.07.2022 and allowed formal amendments to be made by the

Financial Creditor, it was emphatically asserted that the same order also allowed

the Appellant to take all available defences, and pursuant thereto, IA No.

1184/2022 was filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority to decide

on the maintainability of the main petition.

5. It is the contention of the Appellant that despite the amendments, the

cause-title of the main application continued to remain defective. The main

petition which was affirmed by Mr. Projoy Chatterjee was not maintainable and

therefore re-signing of the application by Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha without prior

written instruction of the Administrator rendered the main petition illegal. No

power had been given the Administrator to Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha to rectify or

cure any proceeding already instituted. It was also contended that a PoA holder

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

4 is not competent to file an application on behalf of the Financial Creditor. Hence,

the main petition continued to be null and void.

6. It was pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that

the IA 1184/2022 came up for hearing on 05.12.2022 and got reserved for

orders. During this hearing, the main petition was never heard but when the

orders were pronounced on 26.06.2023, the main petition was allowed. Since

the main petition was not heard by the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant

was denied the opportunity of defending his cause which vitiates the principle of

natural justice. Emphasizing that the Section 7 application was wrongly

admitted without having been heard, the impugned order has also been assailed

on the ground that it is in contravention of Rule 150(1) of the NCLT Rules, 2016

since the order was pronounced after a gap of more than six months and that

too without hearing the main petition.

7. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contesting the

submissions made by the Appellant stated that the debt has been clearly

established from the loan agreements. Since the Corporate Debtor failed to repay

the debts despite several demands made by the Financial Creditor, both the

necessary ingredients of debt and default having been met, it was a fit case for

admitting Section 7 application.

8. Submission was made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent

No.1 that the Appellant is merely trying to clutch on to hyper-technical pleas of

maintainability of the main petition to stonewall the admission of Section 7

application. Claiming that the main petition was legally valid, it was stated that

the Financial Creditor in its board meeting of 15.01.2018 had permitted the

Chairman to execute a PoA on 31.03.2021 in favour of Mr. Projoy Chatterjee to Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

5 pursue legal matters. When the Board of the Financial Creditor was superseded

on 08.10.2021, the RBI appointed an Administrator. Mr. Projoy Chatterjee's

authority to pursue legal matters on behalf of the Financial Creditor was affirmed

by the Administrator on 25.10.2021 which preceded the filing of the main

petition on 22.11.2021. When Mr. Projoy Chatterjee resigned, the Administrator

executed another PoA on 01.04.2022 in favour of Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha. After

execution of the second PoA, the Adjudicating Authority on 04.04.2022 had

directed the Financial Creditor to obtain proper instructions from the

Administrator to make necessary amendments to the pleadings in the company

petition. Accordingly, IA No.430/2022 was filed by the Financial Creditor which

was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority on 01.07.2022 and thereafter the

main petition was re-signed and re-verified. It has been strongly contended that

the institution of the main company petition and continuance of the proceedings

on behalf of the Financial Creditor has been done by duly authorized persons at

all points of time. It was also added that in order to avoid an order of CIRP from

being passed, the Corporate Debtor had filed IA No. 1184/2022 raising frivolous

grounds.

9. Refuting the contention of the Appellant that principles of natural justice

had been violated, it was asserted the Corporate Debtor was given due

opportunity to file pleadings and Appellant had also filed the affidavit in

opposition to the main petition on 13.10.2022. These submissions were duly

considered by the Adjudicating Authority while recording its findings. It has been

vehemently contended that several hearings took place and the Adjudicating

Authority had heard both parties on merits in the IAs as well as the main petition.

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

6

10. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and

perused the records carefully. The short point for our consideration is whether

there was any denial of justice and fair opportunity of hearing suffered by either

of the parties before the Adjudicating Authority and whether the impugned order

suffers from any infirmity on the count of natural justice or on merits.

11. To get a balanced perspective on whether there was any violation of

principles of natural justice, at the very outset, it may be prudent to map the

significant date of hearings in respect of the main petition and the related IAs

before the Adjudicating Authority. On perusal of the orders passed from time to

time by the Adjudicating Authority, we notice that when the main application

came up before the Adjudicating Authority for the first time on 25.01.2022, in

view of ongoing Covid pandemic, four weeks' time was given to the counsel of

Corporate Debtor to file reply affidavit and next hearing was fixed on 04.04.2022.

On 04.04.2022, the Financial Creditor sought time to seek instructions from the

Administrator to make necessary amendments to the main application. This was

allowed and the related IA 430/2022 for re-signing and re-verifying the main

petition which was filed by the Financial Creditor came up for hearing on

30.06.2022 where both parties were present. It is clear from the orders that the

amendments sought to be made by the Financial Creditor were held to be formal

in nature and was allowed. The counsel of Corporate Debtor was also given the

liberty to take all available defences including maintainability of the main

petition. We notice at this stage that the orders of the Adjudicating Authority in

IA 430/2022 were however not challenged and therefore attained a finality.

12. Thereafter the main petition came up for hearing on 11.07.2022 when the

counsel of Corporate Debtor sought two weeks' time to file reply affidavit which

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

7 was allowed and next hearing fixed for 08.08.2022. The counsel of Corporate

Debtor was absent on 08.08.2022 but time to file reply affidavit was enlarged by

another two week's as a last opportunity. On the next date of hearing on

12.09.2022, the counsel of Corporate Debtor was present but had not filed reply

affidavit. The Corporate Debtor's right to file reply affidavit was closed and matter

fixed for arguments on 13.10.2022 and accorded priority listing. Again on

13.10.2022, though counsel of Corporate Debtor was present, he was not ready

for argument and sought time to prepare arguments on the maintainability of

the main petition. The matter was adjourned to 19.10.2022 with costs. It is

significant to note that the Adjudicating Authority had accorded priority listing

to this matter. On the next date of hearing on 19.10.2022 it is pertinent to note

that both parties were present and the Adjudicating Authority in IA 1200/2022

allowed recall of its order dated 12.09.2022 and gave an opportunity to the

counsel of Corporate Debtor to file reply affidavit. Thus, at this stage, three

distinctive developments are noteworthy, first, that the Corporate Debtor's right

to file reply affidavit to the main petition was restored; secondly, Corporate

Debtor's challenge to the maintainability of the main petition was filed vide

IA1184/2022 and thirdly and most importantly, the Adjudicating Authority

clearly directed the listing of the main petition together with IA 1184/2022 on

21.11.2022. The third development pointed out above made it clearly understood

to both parties that the main petition and IA 1184/2022 will be heard together.

The relevant order of 19.10.2022 is reproduced below:

"DIVISION BENCH COURT - I NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA C.P.(IB)/367(KB)2021 IA(I.B.C)/1184(KB)2022 IA(I.B.C)/1200(KB)2022 Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

8 CORAM: 1. HON'BLE MEMBER(J), SHRI ROHIT KAPOOR.

2. HON'BLE MEMBER(T), SHRI BALRAJ JOSHI

ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING ON 19TH OCTOBER, 2022, 10:30 A.M

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE IN THE MATTER OF LIMITED VS DADHEECH INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED IBC UNDER SEC 7 UNDER SECTION Appearances (via video conferencing/physical)

Mr. Reetobroto Kr. Mitra, Adv. : For Financial Creditor Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Kanodia, Adv. Mr. Indradeep Basu, Adv. Mr. Tanmoy Sett, Adv.

Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv. : For Corporate Debtor Mr. Nikunj Berila, Adv. Mr. R. Lakhmani, Adv. ORDER

1. Ld. Sr. Counsel/Counsel for the parties present. 2. IA(I.B.C)/1200(KB)2022 i. This IA has been filed for seeking one days' time for filing reply

affidavit. The right to file reply affidavit was closed on 12th of September, 2022. Reasons to recall order dated 12th of September, 2022 mentioned in para 4 and 5 of this IA which is duly supported by an affidavit.

ii. We have considered the averments contained in this IA and heard the counsel for the parties.

iii. In view of the position stated in this IA, we allow the Corporate Debtor to file reply affidavit by tomorrow. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two days.

iv. IA is accordingly allowed and disposed of

3. IA(I.B.C)/1184(KB)2022 i. Reply affidavit, if any, be also filed. List this IA on 21/11/2022.

4. List the main CP along with IA (I.B.C)/1184(KB)2022 on 21/11/2022

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

9 Balraj Joshi Rohit Kapoor Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

(Emphasis supplied)

13. We take notice that several hearings had taken place and the Adjudicating

Authority had heard both parties on merits in respect of the IAs as well as the

main petition. The Appellant was also been given opportunity to file pleadings

which was also availed by the Appellant having filed the affidavit in opposition

on 13.10.2022 as at page 768 of Appeal Paper Book ("APB" in short) putting forth

its objections. These submissions have been duly considered by the Adjudicating

Authority while recording its findings. Thus, we have no doubt in our minds that

both parties were fully aware that the Adjudicating Authority had clubbed

together for hearing the main petition and IA 1184/2022 for conjoint disposal

which got deferred from 21.11.2022 to 05.12.2022. That the Adjudicating

Authority having allowed the counsel of Corporate Debtor to file reply affidavit,

there can be no room for complaining that pleadings could not be made. The

submission made by the Learned Senior Counsel of the Appellant that they were

under the impression that only IA 1184/2022 was being heard on 05.12.2022

does not appeal to us. Prima-facie, there is no valid ground to find any fault in

the conduct of proceedings by the Adjudicating Authority on grounds of denial

of any opportunity of hearing to either party. We are also inclined to believe that

both the matters being integral to each other were heard together.

14. It is however the case of the Appellant that their contention that the main

petition was not heard by the Adjudicating Authority is validated by the fact that

the Respondent No.1 had filed IA No. 657/2023 on 06.04.2023 where they have

mentioned that hearing of IA 1184/2022 was concluded on 05.12.2022 but

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

10 remained silent about hearing on the main petition. We are not persuaded by the

logic and reasoning proffered by the Appellant since they have tried to visualize

the statement from their perspective for their own benefit. We must see in what

context and what circumstances the above statement was made by Respondent

No.1 and the underlying intent. It is important to note that the IA 657/2023 was

filed nearly 4 months after the Adjudicating Authority had reserved the orders

and the Financial Creditor had become aware that taking advantage of the

pendency of the matter, the promoters of the Corporate Debtor had started to

siphon out funds and remove the assets of the Corporate Debtor beyond the

reach of the creditors. Thus, the intent of the Respondent No.1 in filing IA

657/2023 was to draw the attention of the Adjudicating Authority to the fact

that IA No. 1184/2022 which raised frivolous grounds so as to delay the CIRP

being integral to the main petition and both having already been heard, an

interim injunction be passed till the orders reserved are pronounced.

15. This now brings us to the issue of tenability and maintainability of the

main petition in the eyes of law. It is the contention of the Learned Senior

Counsel for the Appellant that this Tribunal in Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 266 has held that a company

petition could not be instituted on the basis of a PoA which view has also been

affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth vs.

Chandra Prakash Jain (2022) 5 SCC 600. We entirely agree with the

proposition of law laid down in the above two judgments. But we must add that

the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has missed out the point that mere

use of the word PoA does not take away the power to file a section 7 application

as long as a general authorization has been made for its officers to do the needful

in legal proceedings which authorization are present on record in the present Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

11 matter. That being the case, the above judgements do not come to the avail of

the Appellant.

16. We find that Adjudicating Authority has dwelled at length on the

maintainability aspect of the main petition at para 11.2 of the impugned order

and come to a definitive conclusion at para 11.3 that the main petition is

maintainable which is as reproduced below:

"11.3 Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Administrator had lawful authority to execute the Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha and further that Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha was duly authorized to continue/contest the present petition on behalf of the Financial Creditor before this Adjudicating Authority and to file further document perform other acts and deeds required for pursuing/contesting the instant petition. The amendments carried out in cause title are in pursuance of the Power of Attorney in favor of Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha and therefore the Corporate Debtor's plea regarding the defective cause title is incorrect and untenable. Based on facts and documents as indicated above, the filing of this petition and its continuation subsequently do not suffer any defects as alleged. As such contentions of respondent are found to be in-correct and untenable."

17. The above findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority are in order

when we test it on the factual matrix. The Financial Creditor, before entering into

CIRP, being a non-banking financial company, in its board meeting held on

15.01.2018 authorized the Chairman to execute a PoA on 31.03.2021 in favour

of Mr. Projoy Chatterjee to pursue legal matters as at page 91-95 of APB.

Thereafter, when the Board of the Financial Creditor was superseded on

08.10.2021, the RBI had appointed one Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, as the

Administrator as seen at pages 107-113 of APB. The Administrator vide letter

dated 25.10.2021 had acknowledged and continued to initiate recovery actions

against debtors during the CIRP period of the Financial Creditor as may be seen

at page 97 of APB. It was under the signature of Mr. Projoy Chatterjee that the Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

12 main petition was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 22.11.2021. Mr.

Projoy Chatterjee's authority to carry on legal matters on behalf of the Financial

Creditor was acknowledged and affirmed by the Administrator on 25.10.2021

which was anterior to the filing of the main company petition on 22.11.2021.

When Mr. Projoy Chatterjee resigned from the services of the Financial Creditor,

the Administrator had executed another PoA on 01.04.2022 in favour of Mr.

Sohan Kumar Jha, and he was empowered to contest legal proceedings on behalf

of the Financial Creditor as at pages 1969-1973 of APB. After execution of the

second PoA, the Adjudicating Authority on 04.04.2022 had directed the Financial

Creditor to obtain proper instructions from the Administrator to make necessary

amendments to the pleadings in the company petition. Accordingly, IA

No.430/2022 was filed by the Financial Creditor which was allowed by the

Adjudicating Authority on 01.07.2022. Thus, Mr. Sohan Kumar Jha had re-

signed and re-verified the main company petition and this order was not

challenged by the Appellant and had therefore attained finality. That being the

case, we are of the considered view that the institution of the main petition and

continuance of the proceedings on behalf of the Financial Creditor has been done

by duly authorized persons at all points of time and therefore the Adjudicating

Authority did not commit any error in finding the main petition to be

maintainable and valid.

18. This brings us to the question whether the admissibility of Section 7

application has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned

order. It is the case of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority had failed

to consider the fact that the Corporate Debtor had repaid the total sum lent to

him and that the claim of the Financial Creditor is based on several agreements

which have been barred by limitation on the date of filing of the main petition. Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

13 Further the Adjudicating Authority had mistakenly and erroneously held that

the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged an outstanding liability by relying on

an email dated 05.08.2022 which could not have been held to be an admission

of debt or liability. Further, the Adjudicating Authority has also failed to

appreciate that the Corporate Debtor is a going concern presently executing

various government contracts. Hence, the admission of the Corporate Debtor into

CIRP runs contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidarbha

Industries Power Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Ltd. (2022) 8 SCC 352. It was also

submitted that the Financial Creditor having been admitted to CIRP at the behest

of RBI in CP(IB) No.294/2021 and RBI being a Corporate Debtor itself is barred

from initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

19. It is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that once existence of debt and

default is established, the Adjudicating Authority has no scope to exercise

discretion and must admit Section 7 application. It was also pointed out that the

Hon'ble Apex Court had clarified in the Vidarbha judgment that it was limited

to the facts of that case and was not to be applied as a general rule. It was also

pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Kumar vs.

Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 1 has held that Section 11(a) has to be read with

Explanation II appended to that provision. The purpose of Section 11 is not to

hinder the resolution of a Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor is allowed

to undertake recovery action against its own debtors.

20. This aspect of debt and default has been dwelt at length by the

Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order and the relevant paragraphs have

been extracted below:

"11.7 Upon perusal and careful consideration of the above documents, other documents referred to and relied upon by Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

14 financial creditor in its petition, rejoinder filed by Financial Creditor, averments along with documents in reply/rebuttal by Corporate Debtor, a debt was due from the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor has committed a default in the payment of the same.

11.8 Now, coming to the plea of Corporate Debtor the Financial Creditor had obtained signatures of the Corporate Debtor on blank paper and Financial Creditor fraudulently, incorrectly, unilaterally inserted in the agreement dated 16.06.2017, we have perused and considered the averments, rebuttal to it and the said agreement dated 16-06-2017. This Adjudicating Authority is of a considered opinion that such allegations made by the Corporate Debtor on the face of it are without any basis, merely a rhetoric/attempt to wriggle out of its obligations in law to pay its debt due to the Financial Creditor. We may, while rejecting this plea from the corporate debtor, reiterate reference to E-mail dated 5-08-2022 seeking restructuring of debt by Corporate Debtor.

11.9 Considering the above-mentioned documents, facts and circumstances and the law laid down and cited above, this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a debt was due from the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor has committed a default in the payment of the same. Based on record/documents, we find the instant petition has been filed within the period of limitation. The debt due and in default is more than One crore Rupees. As such, the instant petition deserves to be admitted and is hereby admitted."

(Emphasis supplied)

21. We are satisfied with the above findings recorded by the Adjudicating

Authority in that debt and default above the threshold limit having been

established, there is sufficient reason for admission of the main petition and

admitting the Corporate Debtor into the rigours of CIRP. We however add that

procrastinated pronouncement of order has given fodder to the Appellant in

making the absurd claims of having not been heard. At this point, we cannot

restrain ourselves from observing that such unreasonable and unexplained

delays in delivering verdicts are not desirable. Be that as it may, the hyper-

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

15 technical and opportunistic pleas raised by the Appellant to stymie the

admission of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor cannot be countenanced either.

22. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that there are no

sufficient and plausible grounds made which warrant any interference with the

impugned order. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi Date: 17.08.2023

PKM

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.909 of 2023

16