State Bank Of India vs Athena Energy Ventures Pvt Ltd

[Arising out of Order dated 4th March, 2020 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in CP(IB)No.466/7/HDB/2019] (Appeal mentions number as 446. But see Impugned Order)

IN THE MATTER OF: Before NCLT Before NCLAT

State Bank of India Appellant Stressed Asset Management Branch, Secunderabad Door No.6-2-915, 5th Floor, Rear Block, HMWSSB Compound, Khairthabad, Hyderabad - 500 004

Vs.

Athena Energy Respondent Ventures Private Limited Front Side, Third Floor, Part of Property No.E-561, 561A, G.R. Plaza, Palam, Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075

For Appellant: Mr. V.M. Kannan, Mr. Sambit Panja and Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Advocates

For Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Babu Paluta, Advocate 2

JUDGEMENT

(24th November, 2020) A.I.S. Cheema, J. :

1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC - in short) against Impugned Order

dated 4th March, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench) in CP(IB)No.

466/7/HDB/2019. (Appeal and Parties have referred the Number as 446

but Impugned Order (Page 18) mentions number as 466. We will thus

refer the number as 466). The Appellant - State Bank of India filed the

Application against Respondent - Athena Energy Ventures Private

Limited - Corporate Debtor who was Corporate Guarantor for "Athena

Chattisgarh Power Ltd." (The Principal Borrower hereafter referred as

"Borrower"). The application was filed as Borrower committed default in

repayment of the financial assistance provided to the Borrower. Athena

Chattisgarh (Borrower) is joint Venture Company promoted by the

Respondent - Corporate Debtor. The Borrower availed financial

assistance from the Appellant Bank and other banks, in consortium and

had executed necessary documents in favour of the Appellant and other

consortium banks. When the need of the Borrower increased, the

Respondent which is a joint venture and promoter of Borrower came

forward and executed corporate guarantee and documents in favour of

the Appellant and other consortium of banks. The Respondent was under

obligation to see that amounts availed under the finance from the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 3

Appellant were repaid by the Borrower. The Appellant had sanctioned Rs.

3069, 68, 00, 000/- and had actually disbursed Rs. 2769, 19, 05, 767/-

to the Borrower. The Borrower committed default and Appellant filed

Application under Section 7 of IBC against the Borrower before the

Adjudicating Authority. The said Application was numbered as

CP(IB)No.616/07/HDB/2018. The same was admitted by Adjudicating

Authority by Order dated 15th May, 2019.

2. Appellant claims that the Appellant also filed present Application

under Section 7 of IBC having number CP(IB)No.466/07/HDB/2019 to

seek initiation of CIRP against Respondent - Corporate Guarantor. The

Application was filed before the Adjudicating Authority at Hyderabad in

view of provisions of Section 60(2) of IBC although registered office of

Respondent is at New Delhi.

3. It appears that the Respondent opposed the Application filed

claiming that the Application was arising out of very same transaction

and very same common Loan Agreement dated 30th March, 2011 as

amended by first Amendment Agreement dated 31st March, 2015 followed

by second Amendment Agreement dated 1st September, 2016 and thus

the Application filed by the Appellant against Respondent was

duplicating the claim which was not permissible. The Respondent relied

on the Judgement of this Appellate Tribunal in the case of "Vishnu

Kumar Agarwal vs. Piramal Enterprise Ltd." - CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 346 &

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 4

347 of 2018 dated 8th January, 2019 where it is held that once the

petition under Section 7 of IBC is filed against Principal Debtor/Co-

Guarantor and CIRP has been initiated, the Financial Creditor cannot file

another Application on the very same set of claim.

4. The Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and referred to

observations of this Tribunal in the matter of "Piramal". Keeping

Judgement in the matter of Piramal in view, the Adjudicating Authority

raised question that when Application under Section 7 had been

admitted against the Principal Borrower whether the present Application

by the same Financial Creditor could be admitted against Corporate

Guarantor on same set of claims and default. The Adjudicating Authority

relied on Para - 32 of the Judgement in the matter of Piramal and

reproduced the same as under:-

"In para 32of their Judgement (supra) the Hon'ble NCLAT observed as under:-

"There is no bar in the 'I&B Code' for filing simultaneously two applications under Section 7 against the 'Principal Borrower' as well as the 'Corporate Guarantor(s)' or against both the 'Guarantors'. However, once for same set of claim application under Section 7 filed by the 'Financial Creditor' is admitted against one of the 'Corporate Debtor' ('Principal Borrower' or 'Corporate Guarantor(s)'), second application by the same 'Financial Creditor' for same set of claim and default cannot be admitted against the other 'Corporate Debtor' (the 'Corporate Guarantor(s)' or the 'Principal Borrower'). Further, though there is a provision to file joint application under Section 7 by the 'Financial Creditors', no application can be filed by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 5

'Financial Creditor' against two or more 'Corporate Debtors' on the ground of joint liability ('Principal Borrower' and one 'Corporate Guarantor', or 'Principal Borrower' or two 'Corporate Guarantors' or one 'Corporate Guarantor' and other 'Corporate Guarantor'), till it is shown that the 'Corporate Debtors' combinedly are joint venture company."

Relying on the above paragraph, the Adjudicating Authority

discussed and concluded that the Principal Borrower and Respondent

could not be called joint venture Company as they were independent

Companies having independent Memorandum of Association. Then,

relying on the above paragraph in the matter of Piramal, the Adjudicating

Authority declined to admit the Application as it was on same set of facts,

claim and default for which CIRP was already initiated and was in

progress in CP(IB) No.616/7/HDB/2018 and where according to the

Adjudicating Authority, the claim of Applicant had already been

admitted. Thus, the Application of the Appellant against the Respondent

came to be rejected.

5. The present Appeal is against such Judgement.

6. We have heard Counsel for both sides. Counsel for Appellant

referred to the Guarantee Agreement and their contents and the fact that

Respondent stood Guarantor for the Principal Borrower. He referred to

the dues outstanding as on 31st August, 2018.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 6

7. Counsel for Respondent has not disputed the execution of the

documents between the parties and the fact that Athena Chattisgarh

Power Ltd. is the Principal Borrower and the quantum of amounts

outstanding or that they are in default. The filing of the two Applications

is also not in dispute as well as the fact that the CIRP has already been

initiated against the Principal Borrower.

8. The learned Counsel for Appellant argued that under Section 128

of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, liability of the Principal Borrower and

the Guarantor is co-extensive and the Creditor is entitled to proceed

against either or both and no sequence is required to be followed.

Referring to Section 5(8)(a), (h) and (i) of IBC, it is argued that IBC treats

the Principal Borrower and Guarantor similarly. Reliance is placed on

Section 60(2) of IBC to submit that simultaneous Application could be

filed against the Borrower as well as Guarantor and that the same could

also be maintained. The learned Counsel argued that Judgement in the

matter of "Piramal" was relating to not Principal Borrower and Guarantor

but filing of two separate proceedings against two Guarantors. Thus,

according to him, the Judgement did not apply. It is argued that

amended Section 60(2) of IBC was not noticed in Judgement of Piramal.

It is also argued that Insolvency Law Committee Report of February,

2020 discussed the issue and had observed that proceedings could be

maintained against the Borrower as well as Guarantor and Creditor could

file claims in both CIRP proceedings. The learned Counsel also relied on

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 7

the Judgment in the matter of "State Bank of India versus V.

Ramakrishnan & Anr." (2018) 17 SCC 394 to submit that the Creditor

has remedy with regard to his debt against both the Principal Debtor as

well as the surety. It is argued by the learned Counsel for Appellant and

he has filed copies of Orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Appeals pending against Judgement in the matter of Piramal and other

Judgements of this Tribunal which have followed Judgement of Piramal.

It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the matter of

Piramal in the Interim Order directed maintaining of status quo and in

other matters, stayed the Judgements of this Tribunal.

9. Learned Counsel for Appellant relied on the observations of the

Insolvency Law Committee ((ILC - in short) in its Report of February,

2020 and argued on the lines of observations of the ILC. It is argued that

in IBC, the IRP/RP only collates claims. What haircut is taken by the

Creditors in the matter of Resolution Plan is what the Appellant would be

able to recover in the Resolution Plan or liquidation against the Corporate

Debtor. It is argued, that can then be adjusted in the other proceeding.

The claims can be reduced and adjusted proportionately in the two CIRP

proceedings depending on the liability under the Deeds of Guarantee.

10. Against this, the learned Counsel for Respondent has relied on

Reply (Diary No.22427) and it is argued that the soul of the IBC is

resolution of the Corporate Debtor and to keep the Corporate Debtor a

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 8

going concern to maximise value. The proceedings are not adverse in

nature. It is accepted that under Section 128 of Contract Act, 1872,

liability of the surety is co-extensive with the Principal Debtor and the

Creditor may proceed against Principal Debtor, or the surety or both, in

no particular sequence in recovery proceedings. However, it is claimed

that this principle is not applicable in insolvency proceedings against the

Principal Debtor and surety or against more than one surety, for same

set of claims as claims against surety have to be reduced to the extent of

claims lodged against the Principal Debtor. It is argued that for same

amount, there cannot be two CIRP proceedings, one against Borrower

and the other against the surety. The Counsel relied on Judgement in the

matter of "Piramal". The learned Counsel referred to Halsburys Laws of

England 4th Edition Para - 159 at Page - 87 where it is observed that it

was necessary for the Creditor before proceeding against surety to

request the Principal Debtor to pay or sue him although solvent, unless

this was expressly stipulated. Reference is made to "The Law of

Insolvency" by Ian F Fletcher where it is mentioned that where Creditor

has already initiated action against Principal Debtor, the liability of

surety is reduced to the amount for which Creditor's debt has been

admitted. Based on this, it is argued that the amount claimed against the

Borrower and the Respondent being same, the Application against

Respondent could not be maintained. It is argued that the Appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 9

11. Having heard Counsel for both sides and having gone through the

record, it appears appropriate for us to first refer to Judgement in the

matter of Piramal.

11.1. The two Appeals Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 346 of 2018 and

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) 347 of 2018 were filed by shareholder against

different Orders of Adjudicating Authority by which Orders CIRP was

initiated against the two Corporate Guarantors. In that matter, the

Principal Borrower was one "All India Society for Advance Education and

Research" which was not a Company. Financial Creditor was "M/s.

Piramal Enterprises Ltd." which granted amount of Rs.38 Crores to the

Borrower which amount was guaranteed by two Corporate Guarantors -

Sunrise Naturopath and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Guarantor No.1)

and Sun System Institute of Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate

Guarantor No.2). It appears that two separate Applications under Section

7 of IBC were filed against both the Guarantors and the Application

against Guarantor No.2 was admitted on 24th May, 2018 and against

Guarantor No.1 on 31st May, 2018. In both the proceedings, same

amount was claimed and the debt amount and amount of default and

date of default were same.

11.2. Thus, the issues raised in Para - 15 of the Judgement were:-

"15. The questions arise for consideration in these appeals are:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 10

i. Whether the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' can be initiated against a 'Corporate Guarantor', if the 'Principal Borrower' is not a 'Corporate Debtor' or 'Corporate Person'? and;

ii. Whether the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' can be initiated against two 'Corporate Guarantors' simultaneously for the same set of debt and default?"

11.3. The first issue was answered against the Appellant. We are

concerned with the second issue. This Tribunal while dealing with the

above second issue referred to Judgement in the matter of "Innoventive

Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank" (2018 1 SCC 407) where scheme of the

Code was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court has then

taken note of the definition of Financial Creditor and financial debt and

in para - 29 of the Judgement, raised question whether for same very

claim and for same very default, the Application under Section 7 against

the other Corporate Debtor (Guarantor No.1) can be "initiated". It was

then reasoned in para - 30 that moment the Application against

Guarantor No.2 was admitted the Guarantor No.1 could say that debt in

question was not due as it was not payable in law, having shown the

same debt payable by Guarantor No.2 which had already been initiated

against Corporate Guarantor No.2. It was observed in para - 31 that

admittedly (?) for same set of debt claim cannot be filed by same

Financial Creditor in two separate CIRPs and so two applications can not

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 11

be admitted simultaneously. With such observation, finding is recorded

in para - 32 which paragraph we have reproduced above. The result was

that, in Piramal, although Financial Creditor took pains to secure same

amount by ensuring that two Corporate Guarantors are there (which is

not prohibited by law) the Corporate Guarantor No. 1 simply walked

away only because, CIRP had already been initiated against Corporate

Guarantor No. 2. Thus Guarantor No. 1 escaped payment (which has not

been found to be the object of IBC - See Para 25 of Judgment in the

matter of V. Ramakrishna (Supra.)).

12. Considering the issues which were before this Tribunal when

matter of Piramal was decided, it is clear that the Issue No.2 was relating

to question whether CIRP can be initiated against two Corporate

Guarantors simultaneously for same set of debt and default. The issue

was not whether Application can be filed against the Principal Borrower

as well as the Corporate Guarantor. The observations made in para - 32

of the Judgement that second application for same set of claim and

default can not be admitted against the Corporate Guarantor or Principal

Borrower was not an issue in the matter of Piramal.

13. Apart from this, the observations in the Judgement in the matter of

Piramal do not appear to have noticed Sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Section

60 of IBC. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 60(1) to (3) which

reads as under:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 12

"60. Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons.--

(1) The Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located.

(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1) and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code, where a corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding of a corporate debtor is pending before a National Company Law Tribunal, an application relating to the insolvency resolution or [liquidation or bankruptcy of a corporate guarantor or personal guarantor of such corporate debtor] shall be filed before such National Company Law Tribunal.

(3) An insolvency resolution process or [liquidation or bankruptcy proceeding of a corporate guarantor or personal guarantor, as the case may be, of the corporate debtor] pending in any Court or tribunal shall stand transferred to the Adjudicating Authority dealing with insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding of such corporate debtor."

In Sub-Section 2, the earlier words were "bankruptcy of a personal

guarantor of such corporate debtor". These words were later on

substituted by the words "liquidation or bankruptcy of a corporate

guarantor or personal guarantor as the case may be, of such Corporate

Debtor". These words were substituted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 Act 26 of 2018. This amendment

was published in Government Gazette on 17th August, 2018 and this

amendment was inserted with retrospective effect from 6th June, 2018.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 13

We have referred to these details as Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Judgement in the matter of "State Bank of India versus V.

Ramakrishnan & Anr." (which was pronounced on 14th August, 2018

three days before the above Notification) ((2018) 17 SCC 394) discussed

Section 60(2) and (3) as they stood before this amendment was enforced.

We will refer to the above Judgement in the matter of "Ramakrishnan"

later. At present, we have referred to the above provision which had come

on the statute book when Act 26 of 2018 was enforced and the

Judgement in the matter of Piramal which was passed on 8th January,

2019 did not notice the above amendment. If the above provisions of

Section 60(2) and (3) are kept in view, it can be said that IBC has no

aversion to simultaneously proceeding against the Corporate Debtor and

Corporate Guarantor. If two Applications can be filed, for the same

amount against Principal Borrower and Guarantor keeping in view the

above provisions, the Applications can also be maintained. It is for such

reason that Sub-Section (3) of Section 60 provides that if insolvency

resolution process or liquidation or bankruptcy proceedings of a

Corporate Guarantor or Personal Guarantor as the case may be of the

Corporate Debtor is pending in any Court or Tribunal, it shall stand

transferred to the Adjudicating Authority dealing with insolvency

resolution process or liquidation proceeding of such Corporate Debtor.

Apparently and for obvious reasons, the law requires that both the

proceedings should be before same Adjudicating Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 14

14. It would be appropriate now to refer to the observations made by

the Insolvency Law Committee in its Report of February, 2020. Relevant

part of the Report has been filed by the Appellant as Annexure - C (Diary

No.23383). Para 7 of the Report is as follows:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 15

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 16

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 17

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 18

15. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is relying on the above

observations of the ILC to argue that the Creditor cannot be restrained

from initiating CIRP against both the Principal Borrower as well as the

surety and also maintaining the same. The learned Counsel submitted

that when remedy is available against both, Application can be

maintained against both and only at the stage of disbursement,

adjustment may have to be made.

16. We find substance in the arguments being made by the learned

Counsel for Appellant which are in tune with the Report of ILC. The ILC

in para - 7.5 rightly referred to subsequent Judgement of "Edelweiss

Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Sachet Infrastructure Ltd.

and Ors." dated 20th September, 2019 which permitted simultaneously

initiation of CIRPs against Principal Borrower and its Corporate

Guarantors. In that matter Judgment in the matter of Pirmal was relied

on but the larger Bench mooted the idea of group Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process in para - 34 of the Judgement. The ILC thus rightly

observed that provisions are there in the form of Section 60(2) and (3)

and no amendment or legal changes were required at the moment. We

are also of the view that simultaneously remedy is central to a contract of

guarantee and where Principal Borrower and surety are undergoing

CIRP, the Creditor should be able to file claims in CIRP of both of them.

The IBC does not prevent this. We are unable to agree with the

arguments of Learned Counsel for Respondent that when for same debt

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 19

claim is made in CIRP against Borrower, in the CIRP against Guarantor

the amount must be said to be not due or not payable in law. Under the

Contract of Guarantee, it is only when the Creditor would receive

amount, the question of no more due or adjustment would arise. It

would be a matter of adjustment when the Creditor receives debt due

from the Borrower/Guarantor in the respective CIRP that the same

should be taken note of and adjusted in the other CIRP. This can be

conveniently done, more so when IRP/RP in both the CIRP is same.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India may have to lay down

regulations to guide IRP/RPs in this regard.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of V. Ramakrishnan

dealt with Section 60(2) and (3) of IBC in Paragraphs - 24 and 25 of the

Judgement, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"24. The scheme of Sections 60(2) and (3) is thus clear - the moment there is a proceeding against the corporate debtor pending under the 2016 Code, any bankruptcy proceeding against the individual personal guarantor will, if already initiated before the proceeding against the corporate debtor, be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal or, if initiated after such proceedings had been commenced against the corporate debtor, be filed only in the National Company Law Tribunal. However, the Tribunal is to decide such proceedings only in accordance with the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, as the case may be. It is clear that sub-section (4), which states that the Tribunal shall be vested with all the powers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as contemplated under Part III of this Code, for the purposes of sub-section (2), would not take effect, as

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 20

the Debt Recovery Tribunal has not yet been empowered to hear bankruptcy proceedings against individuals under Section 179 of the Code, as the said Section has not yet been brought into force. Also, we have seen that Section 249, dealing with the consequential amendment of the Recovery of Debts Act to empower Debt Recovery Tribunals to try such proceedings, has also not been brought into force. It is thus clear that Section 2(e), which was brought into force on 23.11.2017 would, when it refers to the application of the Code to a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, apply only for the limited purpose contained in Section 60(2) and (3), as stated hereinabove. This is what is meant by strengthening the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in the Statement of Objects of the Amendment Act, 2018.

25. Section 31 of the Act was also strongly relied upon by the Respondents. This Section only states that once a Resolution Plan, as approved by the Committee of Creditors, takes effect, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor as well as the guarantor. This is for the reason that otherwise, under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any change made to the debt owed by the corporate debtor, without the surety's consent, would relieve the guarantor from payment. Section 31(1), in fact, makes it clear that the guarantor cannot escape payment as the Resolution Plan, which has been approved, may well include provisions as to payments to be made by such guarantor. This is perhaps the reason that Annexure VI(e) to Form 6 contained in the Rules and Regulation 36(2) referred to above, require information as to personal guarantees that have been given in relation to the debts of the corporate debtor. Far from supporting the stand of the respondents, it is clear that in point of fact, Section 31 is one more factor in favour of a personal guarantor having to pay for debts due without any moratorium applying to save him."

18. We have already mentioned that when Hon'ble Supreme Court was

dealing with Section 60(2), it was in the context of bankruptcy of

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 21

Personal Guarantor and the Act 26 of 2018 was yet not published. The

above para - 24 of the Judgement in the matter of Ramakrishnan can be

conveniently read keeping in view the substituted provisions as per Act

26 of 2018. In place of Personal Guarantor, one can read "Corporate

Guarantor" and with suitable changes, scheme of Section 60(2) and (3)

can be appreciated from that angle also. The issue involved in the matter

of "Ramakrishnan" was whether Section 14 of IBC will provide for a

moratorium for the limited period mentioned in the Code, on admission

of an insolvency petition would the same apply to Personal Guarantor of

a Corporate Debtor. The issue was answered in negative by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in such context made

observations as above in Paragraphs - 24 and 25 of the Judgement.

19. It is clear that in the matter of guarantee, CIRP can proceed

against Principal Borrower as well as Guarantor. The law as laid down by

the Hon'ble High Courts for the respective jurisdictions, and law as laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the whole country is binding. In

the matter of Piramal, the Bench of this Appellate Tribunal "interpreted"

the law. Ordinarily, we would respect and adopt the interpretation but for

the reasons discussed above, we are unable to interpret the law in the

manner it was interpreted in the matter of Piramal. For such reasons, we

are unable to uphold the Judgement as passed by the Adjudicating

Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020 22

20. It is not shown that the application was otherwise incomplete. We

thus, proceed to pass the following Order:-

ORDER

The Appeal is allowed. Impugned Order passed

by the Adjudicating Authority dated 4th March, 2020

is quashed and set aside. CP(IB)No.

466/7/HDB/2019 filed by the Appellant before

Adjudicating Authority is restored to the file of the

Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority is

directed to admit the Application

CP(IB)No.466/7/HDB/2019 and pass further

necessary Orders as per provisions of IBC. The

Adjudicating Authority is requested to appoint the

same IRP/RP as has been appointed in

CP(IB)616/7/HDB/2018 in the CIRP proceeding

against M/s. Athena Chattisgarh Power Ltd. (Principal

Borrower). The IRP/RP will act in accordance with law

keeping observations in this Judgment in view.

No Orders as to costs.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[V.P. Singh] rs Member (Technical)

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.633 of 2020