Satya Naranyan Sharma vs Anshul Gupta & Others

1. Mr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass Sharma, R/o 97D, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms New Delhi - 110062 ...Appellant

Versus

1. Mr. Anshul Gupta, Flat No. 1501, Tower IV, Spring Grove Towers, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400101 ...Respondent No. 1

2. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, IDBI Tower, 3rd Floor, D Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ...Respondent No. 2

3. IDBI Bank, IDBI Bank Ltd. IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400005 ...Respondent No. 3

4. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema JeevanBima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 ...Respondent No. 4

5. UCO Bank, UCO Bank Head Office, 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata - 700001, West Bengal India ...Respondent No. 5

6. Dhanlaxmi Bank, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd, Corporate Office, Punkunnam, Thrissur, Kerala - 680002 ...Respondent No. 6

7. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund -2-

3rd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai - 400005 ...Respondent No. 7 8. SICOM Ltd. Solitaire Corporate Park, Building No. 4, Guru Hargovindji Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400093 ...Respondent No. 8 9. AXIS Bank, Axis Bank Limited, "Axis House", C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400025 ...Respondent No. 9

10. General Insurance Corporation of India, 170, Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020, India ...Respondent No. 10 11. UTI Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd., PMS Division, UTI Tower, G N Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra €, Mumbai - 400051 ...Respondent No. 11

12. Federal Bank, P B No. 103, Federal Towers, Aluva, Kochi, Kerala - 683101, INDIA ...Respondent No. 12 13. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Corporate Headquarters, M.A. Road, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190001 ...Respondent No. 13

14. CANARA Bank 112, J.C. Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560002 ...Respondent No. 14

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Saxena, Ms. Nalini, Mr. Vikas Ashwani and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Nikhil Jha and Mr. Milan Singh Negi for RP/ R-1. Mr. Dinkar Singh, Mr. Gagan Garg, Mr. Rohit Singh for ARCIL. Mr. A.N. Tiwari, Advocate. Ms. Shalya Agarwal,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -3-

Mr. Amar Vivek & Mr. Aditya Gauri for Liquidator.

With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 211 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mr. Satya Narain Sharma, S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass Sharma, R/o 127, Sector 9, Faridabad Haryana - 121006 ...Appellant

Versus

1. Mr. Anshul Gupta, Flat No. 1501, Tower IV, Spring Grove Towers, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400101 ...Respondent No. 1

2. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, IDBI Tower, 3rd Floor, D Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ...Respondent No. 2

3. IDBI Bank, IDBI Bank Ltd. IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400005 ...Respondent No. 3

4. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema JeevanBima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 ...Respondent No. 4

5. UCO Bank, UCO Bank Head Office, 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata - 700001, West Bengal India ...Respondent No. 5

6. Dhanlaxmi Bank, Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd, Corporate Office, Punkunnam, Thrissur, Kerala - 680002 ...Respondent No. 6

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -4-

7. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund 3rd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, ...Respondent No. 7 Mumbai - 400005

8. SICOM Ltd. Solitaire Corporate Park, Building No. 4, Guru Hargovindji Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400093 ...Respondent No. 8

9. AXIS Bank, Axis Bank Limited, "Axis House", C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, ...Respondent No. 9 Mumbai - 400025

10. General Insurance Corporation of India, 170, Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020, India ...Respondent No. 10

11. UTI Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd., PMS Division, UTI Tower, G N Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra €, ...Respondent No. 11 Mumbai - 400051

12. Federal Bank, P B No. 103, Federal Towers, Aluva, Kochi, Kerala - 683101, INDIA ...Respondent No. 12

13. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Corporate Headquarters, M.A. Road, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir ...Respondent No. 13 190001

14. CANARA Bank 112, J.C. Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560002 ...Respondent No. 14

15. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Liquidator Shamkeen Spinners Limited E-10A, Kailash Colony, Greater Kailash - 1, New Delhi - 110048 ...Respondent No. 15

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -5-

For Appellant: Mr. P. Nagesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Nikhil Jha and Mr. Milan Singh Negi for RP/R-1. Mr. Dinkar Singh, Mr. Gagan Garg, Mr. Rohit Singh for ARCIL. Ms. Anju Jain and Mr. Hitesh Sachar for R-14/ Canara Bank. Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Mr. Amar Vivek & Mr. Aditya Gauri for Liquidator.

JUDGEMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J:

1. These two Appeals have been filed against the same Order dated 26th

October, 2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad

Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "The Adjudicating Authority") in

CP No. (IB)131/ALD/2017. By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating

Authority has allowed CA No. 85 of 2019 filed by the Resolution Professional

under Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as "The Code") for liquidation of the Corporate

Debtor-M/s. Shamken Spinners Limited.

2. Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 204 of 2022 has been filed by Mr.

Sanjay Chaturvedi-the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor and

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 211 of 2022 has been filed by Mr. Satya

Narain Sharma-the Resolution Applicant whose Resolution Plan was not

approved by the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as "CoC"). In

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 204 of 2022, the Ex-Director has relied on and

supported the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Satya Narain Sharma hence

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -6-

it shall be sufficient to refer to the pleadings in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No.

211 of 2022 for deciding both the Appeals.

3. We have heard Mr. Arun Saxena, Advocate for the Appellant in

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 204 of 2022 and Mr. P Nagesh, Sr. Advocate

for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 211 of 2022. Mr. Milan

Singh Negi and Mr. Nikhil Jha, Advocates appeared for Resolution

Professional. Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate appeared for Committee of

Creditors and Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Advocate appeared for Liquidator.

4. Mr. P. Nagesh, Learned Sr. Counsel advancing submissions on behalf

of Resolution Applicant submits that Resolution Applicant had submitted

the Resolution Plan which was with support of employees of the Corporate

Debtor who were interested in reviving the Corporate Debtor. The

Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 21st May, 2019 has allowed the

Application filed by the Resolution Applicant and directed the Resolution

Professional and Committee of Creditors to consider the Resolution Plan of

the Resolution Applicant. A presentation of the plan submitted by the

Resolution Applicant was made before the CoC in the 12th CoC Meeting held

on 07th June, 2019. The Resolution Applicant highlighted the relevant

portion of the Resolution Plan and amount of Rs. 17 Crores was proposed in

the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor. 25% of the said amount was to

be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the Order of the Hon'ble

Adjudicating Authority and balance within six months. It is submitted that

the plan value being more than the liquidation value of the Corporate

Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have approved the Resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -7-

Plan. Further in 13th CoC Meeting held on 18th June, 2019, the plan came

for consideration, the Resolution Applicant has paid an amount of Rs. 50

Lakh on 15th June, 2018 as was submitted before the CoC in the 12th CoC

Meeting. Net worth of Resolution Applicant as well as his wife was Rs. 26.29

Crores which was more than criteria of Rs. 25 Crores of net worth. It is

submitted that there was no valid reason given by the CoC for not approving

the plan and plan stood rejected in the e-voting on 21st June, 2019. It is

submitted that Appellant has also filed an I.A. before the Adjudicating

Authority seeking a direction to disclose the reason for rejection of the

Application for which C.A. No. 322 of 2019 was filed. It was further

submitted by Mr. Nagesh that in 14th CoC held on 22nd July, 2021 the

improved offer although was noticed by the CoC, but said decision was not

placed before the Adjudicating Authority when the Impugned Order was

passed on 26th October, 2022.

5. Mr. Arun Saxena, Learned Counsel appearing for the suspended

director of the Corporate Debtor supported the submissions made on behalf

of the Resolution Applicant and submitted that the plan submitted by the

Resolution Applicant ought to have been approved by the CoC which would

have resulted in revival of the Corporate Debtor.

6. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional refuting the

submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that

'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' (CIRP in short) against the

Corporate Debtor was initiated by Order dated 29.05.2018 and the period of

CIRP was coming to an end on 23.02.2019. CoC in its 11th CoC Meeting

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -8-

dated 18.02.2019 decided to liquidate the Corporate Debtor and an

Application was filed by Resolution Professional being C.A. No. 85 of 2019

praying for order of liquidation before the Adjudicating Authority. The

Resolution Plan filed by the Resolution Applicant which was directed by the

Adjudicating Authority to be considered vide Order dated 21st May, 2019 was

duly examined, scrutinized and considered by the CoC in its 12th CoC

Meeting and 13th CoC meeting. The Resolution Plan was discussed.

Resolution Applicant was asked to explain the details of sources of fund,

performance guarantee was also not submitted by the Resolution Applicant.

In 12th Meeting, time was allowed to Resolution Applicant to remove certain

shortcomings including the deposit of the EMD. EMD was deposited on 15th

June, 2019 of Rs. 50 Lakhs and plan again came for consideration in 13th

CoC Meeting held on 18th June, 2019. Representative of the Resolution

Applicant prayed for waiving the condition for submitting Performance

Guarantee. With regard to sources of fund, it was submitted that Resolution

Applicant is discussing with certain investors who have shown their interest

in investing in the Corporate Debtor. After the plan is approved by the

Adjudicating Authority, the Applicant shall be able to pay the balance 25%

and thereafter 75%. It is further submitted that after detailed discussion it

was decided to put the plan to e-vote and in the e-voting which was held on

21st June, 2019, the Plan of the Resolution Applicant was rejected by 71.44

% vote. In favour of the plan, there was only 8.61% vote. It is submitted that

only plan which was received in the Resolution Process having been rejected,

there was no option left except the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -9-

no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in approving the

Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

7. Mr. Dinkar Singh appearing for the Committee of Creditors submitted

that during the discussion both in 12th CoC Meeting and 13th CoC Meeting,

Resolution Applicant was repeatedly asked to disclose the sources of fund in

which the Resolution Applicant failed. The Resolution Applicant was time

and again repeating his stand that once Resolution Plan was approved, there

shall be sufficient investors to invest in the Corporate Debtor. Mr. Dinkar

Singh, Learned Counsel for the CoC has taken us to various parts of the

Minutes of the 12th and 13th CoC Meeting.

8. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that after his

appointment, has issued publication in two Newspapers inviting claims.

Liquidator has proceeded with Liquidation Process and accordance with

Liquidation Regulations. Efforts have been made. Sale Notice has also been

published. Liquidator in his submissions has also submitted that on 02nd

April, 2022, 'Letter of Intent' has been issued for accepting the sale of the

assets of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to the highest bidder for

placing highest bid amounting to Rs. 41.05 Crores.

9. This Court vide its Interim Order dated 12th April, 2022 has passed an

Interim Order that auction which has been held on 31st March, 2022 shall

not be confirmed till the further decision of this Court.

10. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the

record.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -10-

11. 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' was initiated against the

Corporate Debtor by Order dated 29th May, 2018. Twice Form-G was issued

by the Resolution Professional inviting 'Expression of Interest' and

'Resolution Plan'. In pursuance of the publication of Form-G, three EOIs

were received out of which two have withdrawn. One Resolution Applicant

submitted its Resolution Plan on 12.10.2018, but failed to deposit EMD and

the Plan was not placed before the CoC. CoC held its meeting on 18th

February, 2019 and passed a Resolution for Liquidation. Thereafter on

19.02.2019, Resolution Applicant submitted a plan. Application for

Liquidation being C.A. No. 85 of 2019 was filed before the Adjudicating

Authority. Resolution Applicant filed C.A. No. 62 of 2019 seeking a direction

to Respondent to consider its plan which application was allowed on 21st

May, 2019 and the plan came to be considered, examined and scrutinized in

the 12th CoC Meeting held on 07th June, 2019.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has attacked the decision of CoC on

the ground that there were no reasons given by CoC for rejecting the plan of

the Resolution Applicant. There was no sufficient opportunity given to the

Resolution Applicant. In the 07th CoC Meeting, Resolution Applicant has

made a request to permit the Resolution Applicant to make a presentation

before the CoC of the Resolution Plan which permission was granted and a

Resolution Plan was presented by one Mr. M.S. Saggu, who was part of the

Resolution Applicant Team. The Plan was presented where with regard to the

value of the Corporate Debtor Rs. 17 Crores was mentioned and it was

mentioned that 25% shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -11-

Order of the Adjudicating Authority and balance within six months. The

presentation of plan is captured in the minutes of 12th CoC Meeting in 4

pages. Queries were raised by the Resolution Professional, whose Reply was

also given by the Resolution Applicant. In 12th CoC Meeting, Resolution

Applicant requested one opportunity to deposit the EMD. CoC Members also

interacted with Resolution Applicant. It is useful to extract the following part

of the minutes of the CoC containing the interaction with CoC Members:

"One of the CoC member intervened and asked the Resolution Applicant that what would be the plan B in case all of the discussions with the investors does not work, to which Mr. SN Sharma replied that they have shortlisted 8-10 customers who would advance money to them and gradually the said advance could be deducted from the sales made. Mr. Saggu added that the company is facing financial issues since last 15-16 years and these kind of arrangements were done in past also and there won't be any issues.

CoC members asked the Resolution Applicant regarding the EMD, Bank Guarantee and the Sources of Funds. Mr NS Sharma requested the CoC members that as they are willing to pay 25% of the Plan amount within 30 days of the receipt of the NCLT order, then why the COC Members are forcing them to pay the EMD amount.

Majority of the CoC members did not agree to the stand of the Applicant in claiming to pay 25% of the amount in 30 days but not able to pay Rs. 50 lacs as EMD. The applicant here requested the COC members

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -12-

to give time for the paying of EMD. RP intervened that it is very difficult to give time as on or before June 23, 2019 the COC needs to decide and communicate their decision to the Hon'ble NCLT.

SASF was of the opinion this company resembles to some other case of a company based in Nagpur (the name was not mentioned). The Applicant does not have EMD deposit. Further the SPV they are talking about is just incorporated on June 06, 2019, though the COC is expected to consider their infant plan.

RP intervened and mentioned that he had asked the applicant for the details of SPV, and the applicant had said that the said SPV was incorporated just of the purpose of acquisition and financing as per this resolution plan(s), thus they are recently incorporated and the same is already covered in their presentation.

Mr. SN Sharma mentioned that, if the COC gives some positive reply with respect to the plan, then it will become easier for them to start taking approvals and streamlining the sources of funds including EMD. This can be worked out within 10 days, if the CoC is positive about the plan.

SASF asked the Applicant that he had sufficient time from the date of submission of plan i.e. 18 February 2019 till the date of his COC meeting i.e. 07th June, 2019 still they have not managed to submit the EMD. He further questioned that, if the Applicant can't submit 50 lakhs after so many days than how can

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -13-

we even think that he will be in a position to pay the entire plan amount."

13. Detailed discussion regarding plan is recorded in the minutes which

indicate meaningful interaction of the CoC Members in the 12th CoC Meeting

with the Resolution Applicant. The CoC gave 10 days' time to Resolution

Applicant to comply the shortcomings in the plan and it was decided that

CoC meeting will be held again. The next CoC meeting was held on 18th

June, 2019 (13th CoC Meeting) where the Resolution Applicant mentioned

that EMD of 50 Lakhs have been arranged. Detail interaction with CoC

Members has been separately recorded in the minutes. Before the CoC,

Resolution Professional has summarized the issue. Following portion of

minutes is relevant to notice:

"Discussion within the CoC Members

BOB questioned regarding Mr. J P Chaturvedi and his eligibility? The RP mentioned that there are 2 ways of verification of 29A compliance. One from the external sources wherein he has checked and verified that he was never a director in the group companies of the corporate debtor nor he has held any other senior managerial post in the corporate debtor. While the other aspect of the compliance is with regards to the said person being relative. The RP in this regards has taken an affidavit mentioned that the said applicant is compliant under section 29A of the Code.

One of the lenders asked regarding the timeline available with the RP to which he replied that the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -14-

CoC has to decide the matter before 23rd June, while the RP shall file a report before the Hon'ble NCLT on or before 24th June, 2019.

The RP summarized the issues before the COC mentioned that-

- The RA is no agreeable to the condition of PBG

- The NW criteria is met only if the NW of RA's wife or Mr. Rakesh Sharma is considered

- Despite various letters being shown there is no clear sources of funds demonstrated

- However, it is the prerogative of the CoC to consider the plan submitted by the RA in view of the order of the Hon. NCLT.

-

The RP asked the view of each of the CoC members:-

BOB mentioned that they are with the decision of the majority.

One of the COC member mentioned that the stand of the COC with regards to PBG needs to be clarified. He mentioned that the COC had never waived the condition of PBG to the previous resolution applicant. The RP clarified that the COC has consciously put the previous plan to vote despite the condition of PBG not being met by the RA. Thus if the plan would have been approved, the condition of PBG with regards to the said previous RA would have been considered to be waived.

The RP tried to analyze the situation before the COC mentioned that the COC has already received the EMD of Rs. 50 Lakhs for the corporate debtor. Thus,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -15-

considering a situation that the RA is not able to honor its first commitment of 25%, even then the COC is benefitted by Rs. 50 Lakhs and the option of liquidation which is sought today can be exercised in next 30 days post approval from NCLT.

UCO bank mentioned that it is not easy to forfeit the money of the workers. The RP replied that if the NCLT approves the plan and then after RA defaults in its commitment, the CoC should have all the right to forfeit the EMD. The RP mentioned that considering the number of calls he receives from the RA he believes that the RA is more serious towards the revival of the corporate debtor in comparison to the two plans earlier received by him.

One of the COC member mentioned that without providing for sources of funds and net worth criteria and denying PBG, how can you say that they are serious? What the RA has done is the past 10 days is only provided the EMD. One of the COC member mentioned that they had made it very clear before the RA in the previous COC Meeting that these four conditions are very crucial in order to consider the resolution plan."

14. In the minutes, queries raised by the different CoC members, doubts

expressed by them has been recorded in the minutes. It was ultimately

decided that Resolution Plan be put to e-voting on 20th June, 2019 and 21st

June, 2019. e-Voting was conducted and the result of the e-Voting has been

brought on record in the counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 1. On

the resolution, Item No. 1, to approve the Resolution Plan, 8.61% were

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -16-

received for the plan. 71.44% vote was received against the plan and 19.95%

votes abstained from voting. There being 71.44% negative voting, plan failed.

15. When we look into the minutes of 12th and 13th CoC Meeting, it is

clear that there is elaborate consideration of Resolution Plan submitted by

the Resolution Applicant. Several questions, queries and doubts expressed

by the CoC members have been recorded in the minutes after detailed

discussion, repeatedly Resolution Applicant was asked to explain sources of

fund and from the discussion, which is captured in the minutes, it is clear

that Resolution Applicant could not satisfy the CoC regarding the sources of

fund. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian

Overseas Bank and Ors" [(2019) 12 SCC 150] had categorically laid down

that commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors has to be given

paramount status and scope of judicial intervention in the decision taken by

the CoC in its commercial wisdom is minimal. In paragraph 52, following has

been laid down:

"52. .....Besides, the commercial wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of the stated processes within the timelines prescribed by the I&B Code. There is an intrinsic assumption that financial creditors are fully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility of the proposed resolution plan. They act on the basis of thorough examination of the proposed resolution plan and assessment made by their team of experts. The opinion on the subject matter expressed by them after due deliberations in the CoC meetings through voting,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -17-

as per voting shares, is a collective business decision. The legislature, consciously, has not provided any ground to challenge the "commercial wisdom" of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the adjudicating authority. That is made non-justiciable."

16. The CoC having rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by the

Resolution Applicant after due deliberation and discussion, the decision

taken by the CoC is a decision taken in the commercial wisdom of the CoC

which cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction by the

Adjudicating Authority or by this Tribunal.

17. The submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that no reasons

have been given by the CoC for rejecting the plan has also no legs to stand

when a decision is taken after due deliberation. The decision of the CoC is

reflected in the result of the voting which cannot be questioned. In so far as

reliance on 14th CoC meeting dated 22.07.2021 is concerned, the Resolution

Professional has brought into notice of CoC about the e-mail send by

Resolution Applicant revisiting his offer, which fact although was noticed but

no decision was taken by CoC to consider the e-mail by reversing its earlier

decision of rejection of plan. Thus, the minutes of 14th CoC in no manner

helps the Appellants.

18. We, thus, are satisfied that no error has been committed by

Adjudicating Authority in directing for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

No grounds have been made out to interfere with the Impugned Order dated

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022 -18-

26th October, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Both the Appeals

are dismissed, accordingly. The Interim Order stands discharged.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

28th September, 2022

Basant

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 204 and 211 of 2022