Suman Kumar Sharma vs Central Railside Warehouse Company ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) No. 845 of 2019 (Arising out of Order dated 11th July, 2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench - III, in C.P. No. IB-609/(ND)/2018).

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suman Kumar Sharma Proprietor of Sri Balajee Transport, S/o Late Mr. Ramautar Joshi, R/o Durgapur, Bara Bazar, Katihar, Bihar - 854105. ...Appellant

Versus

Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited Office at: Ground Floor, Pragati Maidan Station Building, New Delhi - 110001. ...Respondent

Appellant: Mr. S. Bhatnagar, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Aditya Sidhra and Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Advocates. Respondent: Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Ashish Tiwari and Mr. Ananvay Anandvardhan, Advocates.

JUDGEMENT

[Per; Shreesha Merla, Member (T)]

1. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the

Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New

Delhi, Bench - III) in C.P. No. IB-609/(ND)/2018, the proprietor of Sri Balaji

Transport (hereinafter referred to as the 'Operational Creditor') preferred

this Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). By the Impugned Order, the

Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the Application under Section 9 -2-

preferred by the 'Operational Creditor' against Central Railside Warehouse

Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporate Debtor').

2. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the Section 9 Application

observed as hereunder:-

"5. We have gone through the details of the case and heard the arguments of both sides at length. The issue to be decided and to be adjudicated on the present application is whether there is a pre-existence of dispute as between the parties even before issue of the Section 8 demand notice by the Petitioner, because the existence of such a dispute will make the present application non maintainable taking into consideration the scheme of the code and well laid down judicial precedents since coming into force of IBC,2016.

6. The Respondent it is seen had sent a letter dated 01.11.2012 to the Applicant stating that they have detected huge shortages on account of storage of stock at RWC, Hatia and to recover such huge losses they have also withheld payment of about 42 lakhs. As per tender clause VIII and custody and indemnity bond executed between the two, the petitioner is solely responsible for the losses suffered by CRWC on account of handling and storage of stocks at RWC, Hatia. It is also evident from the indemnity bond that the petitioner will be solely responsible for the safe custody and protection of the said goods materials at their risk till the same are duly delivered/dispatched to various customers or as may be directed by the CRWC from time to time or any time and shall indemnify CRWC against any loss, damage or deterioration suffered by CRWC or shortages whatsoever in respect of the goods from time to time under the said agreement while the same remain in custody of the petitioner. Further it is stated that any loss or damage or deterioration or shortage occur or refund becomes due and receivable by CRWC, the petitioner undertake to compensate or pay or refund the amount forthwith on demand, CRWC shall be entitled to recover from petitioner

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -3-

for compensation for such loss or damage deterioration.

7. Thus taking into consideration the agreement as entered into between the parties as well as indemnity bonds furnished thereunder by the Petitioner to the respondent in relation to its performance as well as the correspondences exchanged between the parties, particularly the one dated 10.12.2012 sent by the respondent to the Petitioner making the petitioner solely responsible for the losses occasioned on account of storage and handling being the services expected to be performed by the Petitioner under the agreements with the corporate debtor and the due performance of which there seems to be a pre-existing dispute falling within the confines of Section 5(6) of IBC,2016 and taking into consideration the decision of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs Kirusa Software Private Limited. Thus, the respondent having established a plausible contention and which contention cannot be considered as a mere sham or illusory this petition cannot be entertained under the provisions of IBC,2016. However, the observations made above will not prejudice the right of the Petitioner to approach other legal forums for seeking remedies, if so advised."

3. Submissions on behalf of Learned Counsel appearing for the

Appellant:-

 It is submitted that the 'Operational Creditor' was awarded a contract

of handling and transports of goods at Rail Warehousing Complex

('RWC'), Hatia for two years on 25.08.2009, the same was extended

vide letter dated 23.08.2011, for which the 'Operational Creditor' paid

Rs. 5,00,000/- as Security Deposit. On 28.11.2011, a second contract

was entered into for another two years, the terms of which were

similar to the first contract and the 'Operational Creditor' paid Rs.

10,00,000/- as Security Deposit. The Learned Counsel drew our

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -4-

attention to the relevant clauses of the Agreement which are detailed

as hereunder:-

"BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK:

Unloading/loading of food grains, fertilizers, cement, Salt, Sugar, etc. or any other notified commodities from/into railway wagons/trucks etc., stacking them inside the RWC godowns/Platform/Ground, bagging/re-bagging, weighment, standardization, cleaning, salvaging of the stocks and transporting from/to RWC to/from various storage godowns. The Service Provider shall also be required to keep Rail Side Warehouse Complex and its operational area/premises neat and clean at all times for which no extra remuneration would be payable. The tenderers in their own interest must get themselves fully acquainted with the area of operations and nature of work involved before submission of tenders. Tenderers are required to quote rates for all items of works described in the Appendix-IV-A, IV-B & IV-C. In case, the rates are not quoted for all items of works, such tenders shall be liable to be rejected. If there is variation between the rates quoted in words and in figures, only the lower of the tow rates quoted either in figures or in words shall be construed as correct and valid. Incomplete and conditional tenders are liable to be rejected.............."

..............................................................................

"VIII. Liability of Service Provider for losses etc., suffered by CRWC:

a) The Service Provider shall be liable for all cause, damages, demurrages, wharfages, forfeiture of wagon registration fees, charges and expenses suffered or incurred by the CRWC due to the Service Provider's negligence and unworkman like performance of any Service under this contract or breach of any terms thereof on their failure to carry out the work with a view to avoiding incurrence of demurrage etc., and for all damages or losses occasioned to the CRWC or in a particular to any property or plants belonging to the CRWC due to any act whether negligence or otherwise of the Service Provider themselves or their

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -5-

employees. The decision of the CRWC, New Delhi regarding such failure of the Service Provider and their liability for the losses etc., suffered by CRWC shall be final and binding on the Service Provider.

However, the Service Provider shall not be liable for the damages to the stock on non RWC siding (Railway siding other than those where Railside Warehouse Complex godown are constructed) caused due to inclement weather. The Service Provider though is not responsible for the damage yet all the necessary steps shall be taken to protect the stocks from damage."

(Emphasis Supplied)

 The Learned Counsel submitted that the last payment of Rs.

12,23,379/- was received on 16.02.2016 from the 'Corporate Debtor'

towards part payment of its outstanding 'Operational Debt', which is

Rs. 51,65,270/-. It is vehemently contended that the invoices raised

are for handling of goods and not for storage of goods or weighment of

goods or transport of goods of FCI as the said work was not done by

the Appellant. Hence, the invoices of the 'Operational Creditor' were

not raised for storage of goods but for handling of goods.

 The Appellant got issued the Demand Notice on 01.02.2018 under

Section 8 of the Code demanding the payment of Rs. 51,65,270/-, but

the 'Corporate Debtor' did not choose to give any reply.

 The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application on the ground of

'Pre-Existing Dispute' based on the premise that there was the

Custody and Indemnity Bond excluded by the 'Operational Creditor'

and also the letter dated 01.11.2012, whereby the 'Corporate Debtor'

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -6-

had held the 'Operational Creditor' liable for shortage of 335 MT of

stock of boiled rice of FCI on account of storage.

 The Learned Counsel drew our attention to Safe Custody and

Indemnity Bond. The relevant Clause II is reproduced as hereunder:-

"Custody and Indemnity Bond for Service Provider Contract at RWC, Hatia (RANCHI).

"...............2. We shall be entirely responsible for the safe custody and protection of the said goods materials at our risk till the same are duly delivered/dispatched to your various customers OR as may be directed by you from time to time or any time and shall Indemnify you against any loss, damage, or deterioration suffered by you or shortages whatsoever in respect of said goods from time to time under said Agreement while the same remain in our custody. We further agree that the said goods shall at all time be open to inspection by any person authorized by you."

 The 'Corporate Debtor' and FCI entered into an arrangement of storage

of goods of FCI at RWC, Hatia whereby the 'Corporate Debtor' made it

clear that it was not responsible for the 'storage losses' and 'transit

losses' and such liability would be of FCI only, which can be seen from

the letters dated 18.01.2010, and the Minutes of the Meeting dated

18-19.05.2010. Learned Counsel contended that the 'Corporate

Debtor' was not made liable for the losses there is no question of the

'Operational Creditor' being made liable for the same.

 The goods of FCI were never stored in the custody or supervision of

the 'Operational Creditor'. The letters dated 09.03.2012, 04.07.2012,

20.06.2013, show that the goods were stored by the FCI under its own

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -7-

control and supervision. The 'Corporate Debtor' did not place any

document on record to prove otherwise. In fact, the letter dated

09.03.2012 makes it abundantly clear that the goods of FCI were

stored under the lock and key of FCI only.

 It is strenuously argued that the 'Corporate Debtor' vide letters dated

01.11.2012 and 10.12.2012 fastened the liability of loss of 335 MT of

stored goods of FCI in RWC, Hatia on the 'Operational Creditor'. The

'Operational Creditor' liable on 18.01.2013 stating that the

preservation and treatment of losses were under the purview of FCI

and that the quantity received and the quantity delivered is clearly

mentioned and the losses were less than 0.5%.

 It is submitted that boiled rice as perishable commodity containing

water and storing it for long would naturally lead to storage loss as the

water in the boiled rice would evaporate. It is contended that the said

aspect of not releasing the boiled rice by the 'Corporate Debtor' in

response of non-payment by FCI is mentioned in the settlement deed

dated 13.08.2014. It is submitted that the said settlement deed was

made without taking the consent of the 'Operational Creditor'.

 In the letter dated 26.04.2010, the 'Corporate Debtor' made it clear

that CRWC would not be liable for quantity, transit loss, storage loss

and preservation of stocks which would be the responsibility of FCI.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -8-

 FCI and the 'Corporate Debtor' mutually arrived at a settlement and

agreed to share the loss at 50:50 and hence the same cannot be

fastened on the 'Operational Creditor' herein.

 The 'Corporate Debtor' never made out any case of 'transit losses' and

never pleaded that the 'Operational Creditor' did the storage of goods

of FCI.

 The settlement deed dated 13.08.2014 mentions that the 'transit loss'

included a missing Railway Wagon, the 'Corporate Debtor' attributed

all its losses to the 'Operational Creditor' merely because the

'Operational Creditor' signed the Indemnity Bond. Such an Indemnity

Bond would come into the picture only for the work done by the

Appellant, whereas the 'Corporate Debtor' had unfairly deducted the

amount from the outstanding dues for the fault in the work which was

not done by the Appellant at all. Hence, it is strenuously argued that

the 'Corporate Debtor' had raised patently feeble argument

unsupported by any shred of evidence.

4. Submissions on behalf of Learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent:-

 The Learned Counsel for the Respondent strenuously contended that

there was a storage loss to the tune of 443 MT to the FCI stocks

during 01.12.2011-27.11.2012 on account of handling and storage of

RWC, Hatia. Vide letter dated 01.11.2012, the 'Corporate Debtor'

informed the 'Operational Creditor' of a huge shortage detected at

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -9-

RWC, Hatia and that FCI withheld the payment of the 'Corporate

Debtor' of about Rs. 42,00,000/- and that the 'Operational Creditor' is

solely responsible for the losses suffered by the 'Corporate Debtor' on

account of handling and storage of stock. The same was also

communicated on 01.12.2012.

 The 'Operational Creditor' had admitted the fact of pending issues

with FCI and that there was a storage loss to the tune of 443 MT and a

Joint Meeting was also held among the 'Operational Creditor', FCI and

the 'Corporate Debtor' regularizing the losses. Hence, there is a 'Pre-

Existing Dispute'.

 The 'Corporate Debtor' took up the matter with FCI vide letter dated

13.08.2004 regularizing the losses to the tune of 0.5% as per agreed

terms. But FCI refused to regularize the losses greater than 0.5% but

after repeated requests agreed to share the loss at 50:50 basis to be

borne by CRWC and FCI equally. FCI adjusted the losses in the dues

of CRWC and raised an additional demand of Rs. 9,42,001/-.

 Against total outstanding of Rs. 57,12,428/- to be paid to 'Operational

Creditor' the 'Corporate Debtor' adjusted the aforesaid storage losses

of Rs. 44,89,079/-, which was deducted by FCI from CRWC's invoice

in terms of the Settlement Agreement of 2014 and the balance amount

of Rs. 12,23,379/-, was paid to the 'Operational Creditor' on

16.02.2016.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -10-

 Hence, there were no dues to be paid and the 'Operational Creditor'

with a mala fide intention reopened the settlement and issued the

Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Code.

 The Adjudicating Authority had rightly concluded that there was a

'Pre-Existing Dispute' between the parties and dismissed the Section 9

Application based on the principle laid down in Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in 'Mobilox Innovation Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'Kirusa

Software Pvt. Ltd.' (2018) 1 SCC 353, the 'Operational Creditor' is

trying to reopen an old settlement of the year 2014 entered into by the

'Corporate Debtor' with FCI and the payments therein were already

received by the 'Operational Creditor' on 16.02.2016 and hence, this

Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 The Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 'Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd.' Vs. 'Overseas

Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited' reported in CA No.

1137 of 2019.

Assessment:-

5. The brief point which falls for consideration in this Appeal is whether

there is any 'Pre-Existing Dispute' between the 'Operational Creditor' and the

'Corporate Debtor'. A perusal of Agreement entered into between CRWC Ltd.

(the 'Corporate Debtor') and the 'Operational Creditor' is with respect to

unloading/loading of food grains, fertilizers, cement, salt, sugar, etc. or any

other notified commodities from/into Railway Wagons/Trucks etc. stacking

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -11-

them inside the RWC godowns/platform/ground, bagging/re-bagging,

weighment, standardization, cleaning, salvaging of the stocks and

transporting from/to RWC, to/from various storage godowns. As per the

Agreement, the liability of Service Provider for losses suffered by 'Corporate

Debtor' is covered under Clause VIII(a) reproduced above. The sum and

substance of this liability is that the Service Provider is liable for all damages

suffered or incurred by CRWC due to the Service Provider 'negligence and

own workman like performance' and any service under this contract or

breach. The said Clause does not specify any activity related to storage of

goods.

6. Now we address ourselves to the Indemnity Clause based on which the

Adjudicating Authority has come to an opinion that the 'Operational

Creditor' was responsible for all the losses of storage. For ready reference,

the relevant Indemnity Clause is reproduced as hereunder:-

"Custody and Indemnity Bond for Service Provider Contract at RWC, Hatia (RANCHI).

"...............2. We shall be entirely responsible for the safe custody and protection of the said goods materials at our risk till the same are duly delivered/dispatched to your various customers OR as may be directed by you from time to time or any time and shall Indemnify you against any loss, damage, or deterioration suffered by you or shortages whatsoever in respect of said goods from time to time under said Agreement while the same remain in our custody. We further agree that the said goods shall at all time be open to inspection by any person authorized by you."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -12-

7. From the aforenoted Clause it is understood that the 'Operational

Creditor' is entirely responsible for the loss damage or deterioration or

shortages in respect of goods from time to time handled by them. This Bond

is dated 01.12.2011, the letter dated 01.11.2012 (Annexure A-10) relied

upon by the Adjudicating Authority is detailed as hereunder:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -13-

8. The Appellant/'Operational Creditor' has filed additional documents,

which were part of the Adjudicating Authority in compliance of the Order

dated 26.11.2019, the letter dated 12.02.2013 addressed by CRWC to FCI is

reproduced as hereunder from the aforenoted communication it is clear that

the 'Corporate Debtor' stated that it was not accountable for storage losses

and sought for the immediate release of the amount pending to be paid by

FCI:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -14-

(Emphasis Supplied)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -15-

9. From the aforenoted communication, it is seen that CRWC sought for

immediate release of all outstanding bills on the ground that final delivery of

the stocks, food grain was effected on 11.07.2012 and that CRWC is not

accountable for storage/transit losses. It was also stated that storage losses

up to 0.5% was normal and the letter dated 12.02.2013 depicts that the

percentage of so-called storage losses was 0.473% which is less than 0.5%.

These storages were for the period 01.02.2011 and 27.11.2012.

10. The same is reiterated in the Settlement Agreement dated 13.08.2014.

Apart from the issue of storage losses, the Agreement also deals with Transit

Losses (T/L) in the second Table. For ready reference the relevant portions of

the Settlement Agreement is reproduced as hereunder:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -16-

(Emphasis Supplied)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -17-

11. It is seen from the record that last part payment was received on

16.02.2016 and the Section 8 Demand Notice was dispatched on

01.02.2018. Admittedly, the 'Corporate Debtor' received the Demand Notice

but did not reply to the same. It is the case of the Appellant that this aspect

of 'transit loss' was never raised by the 'Corporate Debtor'. A perusal of the

Settlement Agreement entered into between the FCI and the 'Corporate

Debtor' dated 13.08.2014 shows that the storage loss between February

2011 till March 2012 was less than 0.5% and hence, was regularized. It was

the 'transit loss' which was not waived.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 51 of 'Mobilox Innovation Pvt.

Ltd.' (Supra) has observed as follows:-

"51. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the "existence" of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -18-

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Transmission Corporation of

Andhra Pradesh Limited' Vs. 'Equipment Conductors and Cables

Limited' (2019) 12 SCC 697, has observed as follows:-

"44. We have already noticed that in the first Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill, 2015 that was annexed to the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee Report, Section 5(4) defined "dispute" as meaning a "bona fide suit or arbitration proceedings...". In its present avatar, Section 5(6) excludes the expression "bona fide" which is of significance. Therefore, it is difficult to import the expression "bona fide" into Section 8(2)(a) in order to judge whether a dispute exists or not.

45. The expression "existence" has been understood as follows:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the following meaning of the word "existence":

(a) Reality, as opp. to appearance.

(b) The fact or state of existing; actual possession of being. Continued being as a living creature, life, esp. under adverse conditions.

Something that exists; an entity, a being. All that exists. (P. 894, Oxford English Dictionary)."

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'K. Kishan' Vs. 'Vijay Nirman Company

Pvt. Ltd.' [2018] 150 SCL 110 (SC), has observed as follows:-

"13. Following this judgment, it becomes clear that operational creditors cannot use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures. The alarming result of an operational debt contained in an arbitral award for a small amount of say, two lakhs of rupees, cannot possibly jeopardize an otherwise solvent company worth several crores of rupees. Such a company would be well within its rights to state that it is challenging the Arbitral Award passed against it,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -19-

and the mere factum of challenge would be sufficient to state that it disputes the Award. Such a case would clearly come within para 38 of Mobilox Innovations (supra), being a case of a pre-existing ongoing dispute between the parties. The Code cannot be used in terrorem to extract this sum of money of Rs. two lakhs even though it may not be finally payable as adjudication proceedings in respect thereto are still pending. We repeat that the object of the Code, at least insofar as operational creditors are concerned, is to put the insolvency process against a corporate debtor only in clear cases where a real dispute between the parties as to the debt owed does not exist."

...............................................................................

"23. We are also of the view that the Appellate Tribunal, when it relied upon Form V Part 5 of the 2016 Rules to state that the operational debt would, therefore, be said to have been proved, missed the vital Sub-clause (iii) in para 34 of Mobilox Innovations (supra). Even if it be clear that there be a record of an operational debt, it is important that the said debt be not disputed. If disputed within the parameters laid down in Mobilox Innovations (supra), an insolvency petition cannot be proceeded with further."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mobilox Innovation

Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra) applying the test of 'Existence of a Dispute', without going

into the merits of the case, we are of the view that in this matter, there is a

plausible contention which requires further investigation, which is not a

patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by

evidence. In the instant case, the Clause 'Work Description' 'depicts that the

Appellant/'Operational Creditor' is responsible for the transit and the

handling of all notified commodities'.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -20-

16. Apart from the Indemnity Clause VIII of the 'Agreement and Custody

and Indemnity Bond', signed by both the parties, which provides for the

Service Provider to cover all losses/damages and compensate the CRWC for

the same, the communication on record dated 01.11.2012, 10.12.2012,

18.01.2013, show that there was an ongoing dispute regarding shortage of

335MT of boiled rice. A Joint Meeting was held which was attended by the

Appellant, the 'Corporate Debtor' and FCI. The aforementioned Settlement

Agreement evidences that through storage losses upto 0.5% was regularized,

'Transit Losses' (T/L) of Rs. 81,56,519/- was shared on a 50:50 ratio by FCI

& CRWC, both being Central Government Organizations, they bore the

losses equally.

17. Though we do find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for

the Appellant that the 'Corporate Debtor' did not reply to Section 8 Demand

Notice, that does not preclude the 'Corporate Debtor' from pleading the

'Existence of a Dispute' in their Reply before the Adjudicating Authority.

18. Keeping in view the Indemnity Clause, the communication between

the parties, filed before the Adjudicating Authority read together with the

Settlement Agreement, we are of the view that the ratio of 'Mobilox

Innovation Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case

as we hold that there is sufficient material to show that 'Dispute exists

between the parties'. The observation made will not stand in the way of the

Appellant to seek remedy in an appropriate Court, if so advised.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019 -21-

19. For all the aforenoted reasons, this Appeal is dismissed and we

confirm the Order of the Adjudicating Authority, as we find no illegality or

infirmity in the said Impugned Order. No order as to costs.

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI 23rd September, 2021

ha

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 845 of 2019