Sp Probuild Llp vs Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Anr

[Arising out of order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi in I.A. No. 3640/2022 in CP (IB) No. 923(PB)/2018]

IN THE MATTER OF:

SP Propbuild LLP Having its registered office at: E-365, Nirman Vihar, Main Vikas Marg, East Delhi, Delhi - 110092. ...Appellant

Vs.

Rabindra Kumar Mintri Resolution Professional of Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. Having its office at JD-18-B, Near Ashiana Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi - 110034.

One Group Consortium of Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain and Mr. Apoorv Jain, Residing at C-479, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024 Successful Resolution Applicant of Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Mr. Manav Goyal, Ms. Niharika Gupta, Mr. Muneeb Rasheed Malik and Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Riya Thomas, Advocates for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Mr. Adhish Sharma, Mr. Nitin Pandey and Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

Cont'd.../ -2-

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated

30.11.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi rejecting I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 in C.P.

(IB) No.923 (PB)/2018. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for

deciding this Appeal are:

i. By order dated 20.08.2019, M/s Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd, the

Corporate Debtor was admitted under insolvency. Publication

was made by the IRP on 25.08.2019 inviting claims from the

creditors/stakeholders. Last date for submission of claims, as

per Form A was 03.09.2019.

ii. On 04.03.2020, in the 6th meeting of the CoC, the Resolution Plan

submitted by consortium of "One Group" was approved. The

Resolution Professional filed an I.A. No. 2518 of 2021 under

Section 30(6) for approval of the Resolution Plan.

iii. On 16.06.2021, the Appellant filed its claim in Form CA. The

Resolution Professional rejected the claim on 24.03.2021 on the

ground that same was time barred and the Resolution Plan has

already been approved on 03.03.2021.

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -3-

iv. Appellant filed an I.A. No. 3213 of 2021 challenging the rejection

of its claim, which application was rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority vide order dated 21.09.2021. The Appellant filed an

appeal, which too was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide

order dated 10.11.2021. The order dated 10.11.2021 passed by

this Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the Appellant before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its

judgment and order dated 12.01.2022 dismissed the Civil Appeal

filed by the Appellant.

v. On the strength of judgment of this Tribunal dated 01.06.2022

delivered in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.390 of 2022" another I.A. No.

3640 of 2022 was filed by the Appellant praying for various

directions. The said application has been dismissed by the

Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 30.11.2022,

challenging which order this appeal has been filed.

2. We have heard Shri Arun Kathpalia, learned senior counsel for the

Appellant. Shri Apoorv Agarwal, learned counsel for the Resolution

Professional and Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent

No.2, Successful Resolution Applicant.

3. Shri Arun Kathpalia, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that

the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the Appellant was entitled

to benefit of judgment passed by this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V.

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -4-

Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.". The judgment of "Puneet Kaur" has to be

applied retrospectively and the said decision has to be regarded as the law as

existed on 21.09.2021 when the earlier application of the Appellant was

rejected. The Resolution Professional has admitted that the Appellant has

possession of 9 flats in the project of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution

Professional being aware of the factual position vis-à-vis the 50 flats

purchased by the Appellant, the Resolution Professional did not disclose

correct facts in the Information Memorandum. In the Resolution Plan only 4

units out of 9 units have been incorporated. The claim of the Appellant cannot

said to have been extinguished since the Resolution Plan has not been

approved by the Adjudicating Authority. In the Resolution Plan, the

Successful Resolution Applicant treats the claimants and non-claimants

financial creditors differently, which is not permissible. Appellant is not a

speculative investor. The principal of res judicata shall not be applicable since

the issue with respect to maintainability of the claim of the Appellant was

never decided on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional refuting the

submission of learned counsel for the Appellant contents that the Appellant's

earlier application being I.A. No. 3213 of 2021 having been rejected, it was

not open for the Appellant to file another I.A. which prays for almost same

reliefs. In the Information Memorandum, it was noticed that the Appellant

have booked 50 units. Respondent No.1 having accepted the allotment of 9

units as valid, Respondent No.1 shall undertake the registration of 9 units,

which are already in possession of the Appellant, if the Appellant complies

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -5-

with the terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan submitted by

Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Successful Resolution Applicant

contends that application filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 3640 of 2022

has rightly been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Issue pertaining to

belated claim filed by individual homebuyers as well as the Appellant has

already been settled by this Appellate Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in this very CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, which question cannot be

allowed to be reopened. The judgment of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs.

K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." has no bearing in the present case.

Appellant is not a genuine homebuyer. The Appeal is barred in terms of the

doctrine of res judicata. The Appellant cannot be permitted to reagitate the

same issue by taking advantage of change in law by subsequent judgment of

this Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Resolution Plan Clause 18.15

has referred to the claim of the Appellant of booking of 50 units. The claim of

the Appellant having been taken note in the proceeding and being dealt in the

Resolution Plan no benefit can be claimed by the Appellant by the judgment

of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.".

6. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on judgment

of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which shall be referred to

while considering the submissions of respective parties. Before we enter into

respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -6-

notice series of litigation which was undertaken in the very CIRP of the

Corporate Debtor.

7. The CIRP of the Corporate Debtor commenced by order dated

20.08.2019. Last date for submission of claim as per Form A was 03.09.2019.

It was on 16.06.2020, when the claim was filed by the Appellant in Form CA

which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 24.03.2021. I.A. No.

3213 of 2021 was filed by the Appellant, where following reliefs were claimed:

"(a) allow the instant application of the Applicant;

(b) condone the delay of the Applicant in presenting the claim before the RP;

(c) issue necessary directions to the RP to consider the claim of the Applicant;

(d) direct the RP to admit the claim of the Applicant and to handover the possession of the 41 flats as mentioned in paragraph 7 of this application, and effect the transfer thereof in the name of the Applicant by executing the conveyance; and

(e) in the meanwhile, direct the RP not to proceed with the adoption of Resolution Plan (not been approved till today and the approval of which would render the present application infructuous), without the admission of the claim of the Applicant as the claim was duly presented before the RP at an appropriate stage which warranted admission as per the settled law."

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -7-

8. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the I.A No. 3213 of 2021 vide

its order dated 21.09.2021. Against the order of the Adjudicating Authority

an appeal was filed before this Tribunal, which was dismissed on 10.11.2021,

against which order Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the fact that although Resolution

Plan was approved on 04.03.2020 whereas the Appellant filed its claim on

16.06.2020. Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2021 was dismissed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 12.01.2022, which is to the

following effect:

"O R D E R

The Committee of Creditors has approved the Resolution Plan on 4th March, 2020 whereas the appellant filed a claim on 16th June, 2020 which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 19th April, 2021. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application filed by the appellant which was upheld by the appellate tribunal. Aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed.

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submitted that as per section 31 of the IPC, the Resolution Plan becomes final only after it is approved by the adjudicating authority. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Reported in (2021) 9 sec 657. After examining the said judgment and after hearing Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, we are not

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -8-

inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

The appeal is dismissed."

9. A judgment was delivered by this Appellant Tribunal in "Puneet

Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." on 01.06.2022 where this

Tribunal held that liability towards homebuyers who have not filed their claim

exists and required to be included in Information Memorandum. Certain

directions were issued by this Tribunal in said case directing the Resolution

Professional to provide all details of homebuyers alongwith their claims as

reflected from the record of the Corporate Debtor, who had not filed their

claims. The Resolution Applicant was required to prepare an addendum,

which was to be placed before the CoC. An I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 was filed by

the Appellant relying on the judgment of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs.

K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.". In the said I.A. following reliefs were

claimed by the Appellant:

"i. Allow the instant Application;

ii. Direct Respondent No. 1 to admit the claim in light

of the fresh facts and circumstances; and;

iii. Direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the claims of the Applicant as the part of Resolution Plan;

and;

iv. Direct Respondent No. 1 to execute registration of conveyance deeds for the (nine) 9 flats whose possession had been handed over to the Applicant;

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -9-

v. Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case."

10. The I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 has been rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority after noticing sequence of events and series of litigation. In Para 16

and 17 of the impugned order following observations have been made by the

Adjudicating Authority:

"16. Here, the applicant has sought recall of the order on the ground of change of law. But we are of the view that it will never be a ground to recall the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and in case the Adjudicating Authority, if it exercises such power to recall the order based on subsequent judgment overruling the earlier judgment, it would not only amount to setting aside the earlier order as if it is an appeal but also setting aside the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is impermissible in law.

17. It is trite law that once the proceedings are concluded in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same cannot be reopened and recalled on the ground of subsequent judgment which overruled the earlier judgment."

11. When we look into the prayers made in I.A. No 3640 of 2022, it is

clear that the substantial prayer in the application is admission of the claim

of the Appellant and to consider the said claim in the Resolution Plan. When

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -10-

we look into the prayers which were made by the Appellant in I.A. No. 3213

of 2021, the main prayer in the said application was also direction to the

Resolution Professional to consider the claim of the Appellant to admit the

claim.

12. As noted above, the I.A. No. 3213 of 2021 was rejected by the

Adjudicating Authority, by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, which was passed on the Appeal filed by the Appellant, which has

already been extracted by us. The decision of the Adjudicating Authority

refusing to admit the claim of the Appellant was upheld upto the Hon'ble

Supreme Court which issue cannot be allowed to be reagitated by the

Appellant in the same CIRP by means of another I.A. being I.A. No. 3640 of

2022. The principle of res judicata applies to the same proceeding also, it is a

settled law.

13. We may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "(2005)

1 SCC 787, Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar & Ors.", where

Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that principles of res judicata apply in

different stages of same proceeding. In Para 18 and 19 following has been

held:

"18. It is now well-settled that principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi and Prahlad Singh v. Col. Sukhdev Singh).

19. In Y.B. Patil it was held:

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -11-

"4. It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent state of that proceeding...""

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the res judicata debars a

court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained

finality between the parties. In Para 30 following has been laid down:

"30. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is decided against him, he would be estopped from raising the same in the latter proceeding. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz. estoppel by accord.

15. A three Member Bench of this Appellate Tribunal had also occasion

to consider the question as to whether a decision which has also been final

between the parties can be retrospective on the strength of overruling of an

earlier judgment. The three Member Bench of this Tribunal in "Raghavendra

G. Kundangar & Ors. vs. Shashi Agarwal & Anr., Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins.) No. 886 of 2022" laid down following in Para 21 and 22:

"21. Once the order of the Adjudicating Authority attains finality on account of affirmation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in appeal, the same cannot be reopened. But the simple reason that the Appellants did not raise

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -12-

such issue and consequently, it is hit by the doctrine of constructive resjudicata, though the principle of resjudicata is a part of CPC, the doctrine is applicable to the proceedings in IBC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp," 11 held in paragraph-62 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the doctrine of resjudicata, concluded that the principle of resjudicata is applicable in IBC also.

22. It is undoubtedly true that once the proceedings are concluded in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same cannot be reopened and recalled on the ground passed on subsequent judgment which overruled the earlier judgment.

34. "The Apex Court in Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Venkatareddy (Dead) Through LRs referred supra

...

"34. This judgment and order of the High Court also attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondents any further. Thus, in our view, the question of reconsideration of the validity of the tenancy certificate under Section 38-E(2) so far as Appellants 1 and 3 are concerned, could not arise in any subsequent proceedings whatsoever. More so, the entitlement of the said Appellants 1 and 3 to claim restoration of possession also cannot be reopened/questioned., as their entitlement to that effect had attained finality as the judgment and order of the High Court dated 28-4-2000, wherein their right to claim restoration of possession had been upheld, was not

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -13-

challenged by the respondents any further.

..

38. In view of the above factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that it was not permissible for the High Court to reopen the issue either of grant or issuance of tenancy certificate under Section 38-E(2) or deal with the issue of restoration of possession so far as Appellants 1 and 3 are concerned. At the most, the High Court could proceed in the case of Appellant 2.

39. Admittedly, Smt. Ayesha Begum, the original landholder, had 127 acres of land. The claim of the appellants was valid and maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 37-A of the 1950 Act. The High Court was not justified in observing that as the issue of restoration of possession remained pending before the authority for about nineteen years, the respondents were justified in getting adjudication of their rights regarding issuance of certificate as it had not reached the finality. Mere pendency of proceedings before the court/tribunal cannot defeat the rights of a party, which had already been determined. The High Court ought to have appreciated that proceedings were only in respect of execution of the orders which had already been passed. Thus, proceedings were for the consequential relief. The issue of restoration of possession is to be decided under Section 32 of the 1950 Act. Question of application of the provision of Section 35ought to have been raised in the first round of litigation. Such an issue is required to be agitated at the very initial stage of the proceedings and not in execution proceedings. The said issue in respect of Appellants 1 and 3 had already attained finality. More so, if in the tenancy registers of the relevant

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -14-

years, the High Court could not have opened the issues of factual controversies at all.

35. In addition to the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021 in the matter of "Neelama Srivastava Vs. State of UP and Ors."12 held that when the judgment attained finality, it cannot be re-agitated in any collateral or incidental proceeding. In "Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors."13 while dealing with identical issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reconsideration of the judgment of the Court which has attained finality is not normally permissible. The decision upon the question of law rendered by this Court was conclusive and would bind the Court in subsequent cases. The Court cannot sit in appeal against its own judgment.

36. In the matter of "Union of India Vs. Maj. S.P. Sharma", the Hon'ble Apex Court held a decision rendered by the Competent Court cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding for the reason that it is not permissible to do so as and when chooses and the finality of the proceeding would seize to have any meaning.

37. Applying the principle laid in the above judgment to the present facts, to give quietus to the dispute and to avoid abuse of the

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -15-

process of Court to challenge the judgment which attained finality in a collateral or incidental proceeding, the appellants must be non-suited.

38. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgements, the principle of resjudicata, though a part of CPC, it would be applicable to the proceeding of this Tribunal and IBC. Only to prevent the abuse of process of law and give a finality to any proceeding, or orders, and to avoid an endless litigation to frustrate the very object of enacting IBC, the claim of appellants is liable to be rejected.""

16. We, thus, are of the view that substantial prayer in I.A. No. 3640 of

2022 made by the Appellant to admit the claim of the Appellant having been

finally rejected upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, could not have been

entertained and deserve to be rejected.

17. Now coming to the reliance of the Appellant on the judgment of this

Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." (Supra),

this Tribunal in the said judgment delivered on 01.06.2022 laid down

following in Para 21 and 23:

"21. When the allotment letters have been issued to the Homebuyers, payments have been received, there are Homebuyers and there is obligation on the part of real estate Company to provide possession of the houses along with other attached liabilities. The liability

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -16-

towards those Homebuyers, who have not filed their claim exists and required to be included in the Information Memorandum. Further, under Regulation 36, sub-regulation 2(l), there is column for other information, which the Resolution Professional deems relevant to the Committee. The liabilities which have been undertaken by the Corporate Debtor, huge money received by the Corporate Debtor from Homebuyers, whose claims, which could not be filed within time, could not be wished away by the Resolution Professional, on the convenient ground that claims have not been filed by such Homebuyers. The purpose of CIRP of Corporate Debtor is to find out all liabilities of the Corporate Debtor and take steps towards resolution. Unless all liabilities of the Corporate Debtor are not known or included in the Information Memorandum, the occasion to complete the CIRP shall not arise.

23. We thus are of the considered opinion that Information Memorandum ought to have included the claim of those Homebuyers, who have not even filed their claims to correct liabilities of the Corporate Debtor for its appropriate resolution. In the present case, in the reply filed by Resolution Professional in paragraph 11, following statement has been made:

"11. It is pertinent to mention herein that the claims towards the Homebuyer/ Allottees including the Appellant herein have already been dealt with in the Resolution Plan as submitted by Respondent No.4. it is stated that despite the same, the Appellant is abusing the process of this Hon'ble Appellate Authority by filing the captioned Appeal for

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -17-

seeking reliefs against the Respondents on frivolous grounds.""

18. The present is a case where although Appellant has not filed any

claim but the booking amount of the 50 flats as is claimed by the Appellant

is reflected in the Resolution Plan itself which indicate that the said was part

of the Information Memorandum. Learned counsel for the Successful

Resolution Applicant has relied on Para 18.15 of the Resolution Plan where

the booking of 50 units by the Appellant has been noticed. Para 18.15 of the

Resolution Plan is extracted as follows:

"18.15 Contingent liability

"ii. According to the Information Memorandum two Allottees, SP Propbuild LLP and Jagmohan have booked 50 units and 16 units respectively at a very low price of around INR 1915 per square feet of Super Area. Other bookings in the project are done at an average rate of around INR 4000 per square feet of super area. These transactions seem to be undervalued transactions, and have a big financial impact on the Resolution Plan. The claims of these Allottees have not been received by the Resolution Professional till the date of submission of this Resolution Plan to the COC. In the event claims of these Allottees are received before the Plain Effective Date, a maximum of 50% of Principal Amount received from these Allottees would be refunded by the Corporate Debtor in quarter 12 subject to condition 18.4 (LOI) unless they are declared void by Hon'ble NCLT Bench. These units shall be available to the Corporate Debtor for sale from the Plan

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -18-

Effective Date, free of any and all claims by these Allottees.""

19. We may further notice that the plan also deals with the claims of

those allottees who have not filed any claim before the Resolution

Professional. Para 18.4 (xiii) is as follows:

"18.4 (xiii). Allottee or decree holder of the Corporate Debtor, who has not filed their claim with the Resolution Professional, or if filed, has not been verified by the Resolution Professional, or if verified, has not been informed to the Resolution Applicant prior to submission of this plan, till the completion of project, shall be dealt at the sole discretion of the Resolution Applicant according to the merits of the case, by way of proper verification of the documents held by the Allottees. Upon determination or the genuineness of such claim, the principle amount received from such allottee in corporate debtor's account to the extent of 50% [subject to Clause 18.4(xx)] shall be refunded at the end of Qtr 12 from Start Date. Any other claim in relation to compensation, interest, penalty, etc. by any Allottees received in this period will be written off in full and shall be deemed to be permanently extinguished by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan and the Company or the Resolution Applicant shall at no point of time be, directly or indirectly, held responsible or liable in relation thereto."

20. The present is a case where Appellant could not have prayed for

any direction on the basis of orders of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V.

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022 -19-

Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." because the Resolution Plan notice the claim

of the Appellant of booking of 50 units. We have noted that in so far as 9

units which according to the Appellant are in his possession, Resolution

Professional has submitted that necessary transfer documents shall be

executed in event the Appellant complies the necessary terms and conditions.

Hence, the said prayer made in I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 needs no consideration.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the

Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting I.A. No. 3640 of

2022 filed by the Appellant. There is no merit in the Appeal. Appeal is

dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

4th July, 2023

Archana

Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 1529 of 2022