Sunil Mulchandani Son Of Late Shri ... vs Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd

(Arising out of the Order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (M.P.) in CP (IB) 53 of 2023)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sunil Mulchandani Son of Late Shri Gopichand Mulchandani - Ex- Director of The Suspended Management of M/S Chinar Realty Private Limited, Having Residence At ...Appellant 1, Eidgah Hills, Bhopal462026 (M.P.)

Versus

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited Registered Office At No.9, M.P. Nagar First Street Kongu Nagar Extension Tirupur- 641607 Tamil Nadu Corporate Office At C/515 Kanakia Zillion Junction Of Lbs Road And CST Road Annexe Near Equinox, Kurla (West) Mumbai- 400070 Maharashtra ...Respondent

Present For Appellants: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Anandita Rana, Mr. Raghvendra N. Budholia, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Ms. Aishwarya Mishra, Ms. Lavanya Pathak, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Ms. Niharika Sharma, Ms. Aritra Deb, Mr. Somdutta Bhattacharya, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Utsav Mukherjee, Mr. Saksham Ahuja & Mr. Mayukh Roy, Advocates for RP. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1141 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4095, 4096, 5549 of 2024 & 1088 of 2025

(Arising out of the Order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (M.P.) in CP (IB) 54 of 2023)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sunil Mulchandani Son Of Late Shri Gopichand Mulchandani - Ex-Director Of The Suspended Management Of M/S Chinar Reality Private Limited, Having Residence At 1, Eidgah Hills , Bhopal- ...Appellant 462026 (M.P.) Versus

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited Registered Office At No.9, M.P. Nagar First Street Kongu Nagar Extension Tirupur- 641607 Tamil Nadu Corporate Office At C/515 Kanakia Zillion Junction Of Lbs Road And Cst Road Annexe Near Equinox, Kurla (West) Mumbai- 400070 Maharashtra ...Respondent

Present For Appellants: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Anandita Rana, Mr. Raghvendra N. Budholia, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Ms. Aishwarya Mishra, Ms. Lavanya Pathak, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Ms. Niharika Sharma, Ms. Aritra Deb, Mr. Somdutta Bhattacharya, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Utsav Mukherjee, Mr. Saksham Ahuja & Mr. Mayukh Roy, Advocates for RP.

Page 2 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

JUDGEMENT

(14.05.2025)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present two appeals have been filed against the same Impugned Order

dated 02.05.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench

(M.P.) ('Adjudicating Authority') in C.P. (IB)/ 53 (MP)2023 and CP (IB)/54

(MP) 2023 under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

('Code').

2. The Company Appeal bearing Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 of 2024

has been filed by Sunil Mulchandani- Ex Director of the Suspended Management

of M/s Chinar Realty Pvt. Ltd. against Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

(Respondent), whereas the second appeal bearing Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.

1141 of 2024 has been filed by Sunil Mulchandani- Ex Director of the Suspended

Management of M/s Chinar Retails and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., (the Respondent).

3. We note that there is one common Impugned Order which has been

challenged by the same Appellant, however, in different capacity as he was

Suspended Director of two different Corporate Debtors against whom the

Impugned Order was passed.

4. Both the cases have been pleaded by their counsel in joint manner and

issues and facts are also same, hence, we shall decide both the appeals by one

common order.

Page 3 of 26

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

5. It has been brought out that the loan of Rs. 100 Crores was sanctioned by

Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. ('DHFL') (Original Financial Creditor) vide

sanction letter dated 27.07.2017 followed by loan agreement dated 28.07.2017

with Chinar Realty Pvt. Ltd. as borrower and Chinar Retails and Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd. as co-borrower. The said loan was to be paid back in 24 equated monthly

instalments (EMIs) commencing after 48 months from the date of first

disbursement of the loan.

6. It has also been brought to our notice that said loan of Rs. 100 Crores was

also secured by the personal guarantee as well as the corporate guarantee given

by the promoters along with demand promissory notes in favour of original

financial creditor (DHFL). We note that the said loans was later assigned by the

original Financial Creditor in favour of the Respondent M/s Omkara Assets

Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., ('Financial Creditor') vide assignment deed dated

10.01.2023.

7. An application was filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Financial

Creditor for default amount of Rs. 201,67,59,990/- consisting of "principal"

amount of Rs. 86,80,55,673/- "interest" of Rs. 17,42,120/- and "penal interest" of

Rs. 43,69,62,197/- as on 31.05.2023. It is noted that in Part IV of Section 7

application filed before the Adjudicating Authority, the date of default has been

indicated as 15.08.2018.

8. The Appellant gave the background of the case and pleaded that there has

been no debt and default. The Appellant acknowledged that the loan agreement

Page 4 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

was indeed executed by the Corporate Debtor and the original Financial Creditor,

however, the original Financial Creditor disbursed only Rs. 90.50 Crores and not

full Rs. 100 Crores as agreed upon between the borrowers/ Corporate Debtor and

the original Financial Creditor. The Appellant submitted that it is the Financial

Creditor who had breached the loan agreement and not the Corporate Debtor. The

Appellant further argued that there has been short disbursal of Rs. 9.5 Crores

which has caused great hardship to the Corporate Debtor which led to acute

financial distress for the Corporate Debtor.

9. The Appellant stated that there was moratorium of 48 months on payment

of principals and interest from the date of first disbursement and referred to the

loan agreement dated 28.07.2017 signed by M/s Chinar Realty Pvt. Ltd. and M/s

Chinar Retails and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., with the original Financial Creditor.

The Appellant referred to Clause B in the Schedule of the Loan Agreement

according to which the repayment of loan along with interest was to be made in

24 Equated Monthly Instalments ('EMIs') commencing after 48 months from the

date of disbursement. The Appellant elaborated that the first date of disbursal was

31.07.2017 and hence, for the next 48 months i.e., four years i.e., up to

30.07.2021, there was no amount payable by the Corporate Debtor.

10. The Appellant submitted that however, the original Financial Creditor

issued a notice on 08.11.2019 to the borrowers/ co-borrowers/ guarantors/

mortgagers to repay outstanding amount, followed by demand notice dated

02.09.2020 and demand notice dated 05.12.2022. It is the case of the Appellant

Page 5 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

that this itself indicate that the original Financial Creditor acted with prejudice

mind to lead the Corporate Debtor into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

('CIRP') and subsequently into liquidation. The Appellant further argued that

there was no amount payable before 30.07.2021, as such the Section 7 application

should not have been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority.

11. The Appellant submitted that although technically the loan might have

been disbursed in the account of the Corporate Debtor, however, the money was

taken back by the original Financial Creditor immediately thereafter as evident

from the loan accounts maintained by the Axis Bank. The Appellant as an

example, referred to the accounts statement maintained by Axis Bank in favour

of Chinar Realty Pvt. Ltd. attached as page no. 1055 of the appeal, volume -IV,

where on 31.07.2017 the money of Rs. 80 Crores is indicated to be disbursed by

the original Financial Creditor in favour of the Corporate Debtor, however, on the

same date two entries reflects that same amount has been debited from the

accounts of the Corporate Debtor and transferred to two different accounts: TRF

to 914020017664947 & TRF to 912020026151278, thereby nullifying the

original disbursal. The Appellant emphasised that thus although the first tranche

of Rs. 80 Crores was stated to have been disbursed in favour of the Corporate

Debtor on 31.07.2017, however, on the same date, by two different entries the

same money has been transferred to some other accounts. As such there has not

been any dispersal of money by original Financial Creditor to the Corporate

Debtor.

Page 6 of 26

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

12. The Appellant stated that he had deposited regular instalment, in the

specific account especially created amongst the parties for the same purpose and

there was negative balance i.e., credit balance as on 31.03.2018 and thus, there

could have been no default on the said date of 18.05.2018 which has been alleged

by the Respondent in original C.P. (IB)/ 53 (MP)2023.

13. The Appellant submitted that he had filed an I.A. No. 260/2023 under

Section 65/75 of the Code alleging malicious intentions of the Respondent for

initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and the company petition itself was

filed on the basis of false and fabricated facts. The Appellant submitted that in the

said I.A., he has alleged that there has been no default and also further alleged

that the company petition filed by the Financial Creditor was made based on bald

averments and wrong pleadings, compelling the Appellant to file an IA under

Section 65 and 75 of the Code.

14. It is the case of the Appellant that without proper adjudication of the said

IA No. 260/2023, the Adjudicating Authority could not have passed the Impugned

Order. The Appellant submitted that the said IA was not only dismissed without

considering the merit of the case and the Adjudicating Authority did not even

recognise the averments made by the Appellant.

15. The Appellant submitted that the first repayment of EMI was to start from

30.07.2021, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Financial Creditor to raise

the issue of default, just after 10 months of the first disbursement which shows

malafide intentions of the Respondent/ Financial Creditor.

Page 7 of 26

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

16. Concluding his arguments, the Appellant requested this Appellate Tribunal

to set aside the Impugned Order and allow his appeal.

17. Per contra, the Respondent denied all averments and allegations made by

the Appellants as misleading, baseless and malicious with the sole purpose of

derailing the CIRP process. The Respondent/Financial Creditor stated that the

Adjudicating Authority has considered all the facts and passed well reasoned

speaking order which need no interference.

18. The Respondent also gave the facts of the case and submitted that the

Appellant had approached the original Financial Creditor for availing financial

facilities of Rs. 100 Crores required by the Corporate Debtors for construction

and development work on Phase-I and Phase-II of the project Chinar Dream CT

and based on request of the Resolution Professional, the loan was sanctioned and

required documentation for loan agreement was signed on 28.07.2017.

19. The Respondent submitted that he stepped into the shoes of the original

Financial Creditor through deed of the assignment on 10.01.2023 and thereafter

the application was filed under Section 7 of the Code. The Respondent submitted

that the total amount of Rs. 90.50 Crores was disbursed to the Corporate Debtor

in few instalments i.e., Rs. 80 Crores on 31.07.2017, Rs. 1.5 Crores on 19.09.2017

, Rs. 3 Crores on 29.12.2017 and Rs. 6 Crores on 31.03.2019, thus, the total Rs.

90.50 Crores was disbursed in four tranches.

20. The Respondent denied that the default could have taken place only after

48 months after the dispersal of first instalment and submitted that the loan

Page 8 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

agreement categorically mentioned the fact regarding "pre equated monthly

installment" ('PEMI') which was to be paid from the respective dates of

disbursement to the date immediately prior to the date of commencement of EMI

as mentioned in the Schedule hereunder written. The Respondent has also

referred to the Clause 3.1 r/w Clause 3.4 of the loan agreement according to which

the said loan together with interest was to be paid by the 15th day of each month

in advance for the respective months. The Respondent emphasised that the said

repayment of PEMI was payable monthly from the date of first disbursement

itself.

21. Thus, it is the case of the Respondent that the default could have taken

place immediately after the first disbursement of the loan in case the Corporate

Debtor failed to honour its commitment towards repayment of PEMI as

enumerated in the loan agreement.

22. The Respondent submitted that the Corporate Debtor could not pay the

instalment on due dates and after waiting for sometime, the Respondent was

compelled to take legal recourse by issuing the notice to the Corporate Debtors

for repayment. The Respondent submitted that on failure of the Corporate Debtor

to repay the said amount, the Respondent filed a company petition under Section

7 of the Code which has been admitted by the Adjudicating Authority.

23. The Respondent also denied the averments of the Appellant that there has

not been any disbursement. The Respondent submitted that vary fact the bank

statement of Axis bank w.r.t. accounts of the Corporate Debtor referred by the

Page 9 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

Appellant in his pleadings, categorically stipulated the disbursement of money in

the accounts of the Corporate Debtor's and thus, the debt has been crystalised.

24. The Respondent has also submitted that the Appellant cannot tale blow hot

and cold position since at one time the Appellant stated that there has been no

disbursal of money by the original Financial Creditor to Corporate Debtor since

the money is alleged to have taken back by the original Financial Creditor,

whereas at the same time, the Appellant has stated that he has been paying

instalments regularly to the original Financial Creditor and further the debt could

not have been mature before 48 months i.e., by 30.07.2021. It is the case of the

Respondent that such averments of the Appellant are impermissible and perverse.

25. The Respondent also denied the fact that the IA No. 260/2023 has anything

to do with the Respondent's right to file company petition under Section 7 of the

Code, which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority vide the Impugned Order

dated 02.05.2024. The Respondent empathetically denied the averments made in

IA No. 260 of 2023 to be bald allegations without any basis. The Respondent

submitted that since there was no basis whatsoever, in the said IA No. 260 of 2023

and there was no substance referring to Section 65 and 75 of the Code and

therefore, the Adjudicating Authority correctly considered and dismissed the said

I.A. No. 260/2023 of the Appellant.

26. Concluding his remarks, the Respondent submitted that the said appeals

have been filed with malicious intention to derail the process of CIRP and

therefore, the appeal should be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Page 10 of 26

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

Findings

27. We have already noted the facts in the pleading and shall not repeat the

same. We need to deliberate on the following issues raised by the Appellant, in

order to decide the appeals before us.

Issue No. (I) Whether, there was any debt or disbursement made to the

Corporate Debtor.

Issue No. (II) Whether, the EMIs were not payable before 48 months of the

first disbursement of money i.e., 31.07.2017 and therefore no default could have

taken place before 30.07.2021.

Issue No. (III) Whether the IA. No. 260/2023 filed by the Corporate Debtor

under Section 65 & 75 of the Code has not properly been adjudicated by the

Adjudicating Authority and whether the Impugned Order could have been passed.

28. Issue No. (I) Whether, there was any debt or disbursement made to the

Corporate Debtor.

As far as the first point is concerned, we take into account the bank

statement referred to by the Appellant as well as by the Respondent which

reads as under :-

Page 11 of 26

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

Page 12 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

From the above, it is seen that the first tranche of Rs. 80 Crores was

indeed disbursed by the original Financial Creditor in favour of the

Corporate Debtor on 31.07.2017. We also note that similarly other three

tranches i.e., Rs. 1.5 Crores was disbursed on 19.09.2017, Rs. 3 Crores was

disbursed on 29.12.2017 and Rs. 6 Crores was disbursed on 31.03.2018,

thus total Rs. 90.50 Crores was disbursed by the original Financial Creditor

in the account of the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellant's contention that although the money might have

been technically disbursed in the accounts of the Corporate Debtor,

however, the money was transferred, on the same date to the other

accounts. It is the case of the Appellant that on 31.07.2017 there was a

transfer Rs. 80,00,00,000/- to Account No. 912020035075808, being the

Escrow Account of Chinar Realty from DHFL, followed immediately by

the transfer of (i) Rs. 77,41,23,636/- and (ii) Rs. 2,58,76,364/- (totals

amounting to Rs. 80,00,00,000/-) to accounts bearing Nos.

914020017664947 and 912020026151278 respectively, hence there was no

effective disbursement of money to the Corporate Debtor by the original

Financial Creditor.

In this regard, we note that the money was credited in the accounts

of the Corporate Debtor as reflected by the bank account maintained by the

Axis Bank (who incidentally is not Financial Creditor or the assignee of

the debt in the present case) and the fact that money was transferred to other

Page 13 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

accounts. We observe that such facts have got no bearing of the disbursal

of money by the original Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. The

Appellant could not give any concrete evidence to establish that the money

was illegible or wrongly or malafidly withdrawn by the original Financial

Creditor. We wonder how the original Financial Creditor, who had no

direct control over the banker (Axis Bank) of the Corporate Debtor, would

have made such manipulation. No more details of the same have been

made in the original appeal book. Hence, we do not find merits in the

arguments of the Appellant on this account, as such we are not in a position

to accept the contentions of the Appellant on this ground and the same is

rejected.

29. Issue No. (II) Whether, the EMIs were not payable before 48 months of

the first disbursement of money i.e., 31.07.2017 and therefore no default could

have taken place before 30.07.2021.

The Appellant has taken another plea that there was no default as the

money was payback by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor only

after passage of 48 months from the first disbursement i.e., 31.07.2017. The

Appellant conceded that the first disbursement was indeed made on

31.07.2017 of Rs. 80 Crores. Hence, it is the case of the Appellant that

only after 48 months i.e., only on 30.07.2021 the money was payable by

the Corporate Debtor.

Page 14 of 26

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

In this connection, we would like to refer to the relevant portion of

the loan agreement which reads as under :-

***** Page 15 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

*****

Page 16 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

*****

Page 17 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

*****

Page 18 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

*****

*****

Page 19 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

*****

***** Page 20 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

Page 21 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

From above loan account, we note that the term EMI and

PEMI have been defined which reads as under :-

"Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) means the amount of monthly payment necessary to amortize the Loan with Interest.

Pre Equated Monthly Instalment (PEMI) means interest at the rate payable on the Loan from the respective dates of disbursement to the date immediately prior to the date of commencement of EMI as mentioned in the Schedule hereunder written."

The EMI has been referred to the monthly payment w.r.t.,

amortization on loan and interest. In this regard, the contention of the

Appellant seems valid that EMI could have been due only when the

amortization period becomes mature and therefore, first EMI was

payable only after 48 months of the first disbursement i.e., due on

30.07.2021. However, it is significant to note that there is another

definition of pre-equated monthly instalment (PEMI) as provided in the

loan agreement. The loan agreement also contained the specific

provisions dealing with PEMI which clarifies that interest would be

payable on the loan from respective dates of disbursement to the date

immediately prior to date of commencement of EMI as mentioned in

schedule of the loan.

We need to understand the implication of "repayment of loan"

as stipulated in the loan agreement. In Clause 3.1, it has been agreed

Page 22 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

between the parties that borrower shall repay the said loan together with

interest accrued as stipulated in the Schedule-I of the loan agreement,

by 15th of each month in advance for respective months. It has also

mentioned in Clause 3.1 that interest will be payable monthly from the

date of first disbursement. Thus, it has been clearly stipulated that the

interest is payable monthly from the date of first disbursement which is

different condition then of EMI, wherein EMI is required to be paid only

after 48 months of the first disbursement.

We also note that in Clause 3.4 of the loan agreement, it has

once again been stipulated that PEMI shall be paid from the date of first

disbursement till commencement of repayment through EMI. It has also

mentioned in the loan agreement that if there is a default in repayment

of interest of principal for two consecutive months, it shall be

constituted as an event of default or violation of terms & conditions of

the sanction and the financial creditor may recall the entire loan. Thus,

we observe that there are two distinct terms of EMI & PEMI which

have been stipulated in the loan agreement and which have been

prescribed for different purposes. We need to understand that the EMI

is the concept for amortization of loan alongwith interest, which is

required to be repaid after 48 months of disbursement of first instalment.

On the other hand, the concept of PEMI is regarding regular payment

of interest which is to begin immediately on the first disbursement of

Page 23 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

loan. We have already noted that the first disbursement was made on

31.07.2017, thus, the pre-equated monthly instalment (PEMI) was to

being immediately thereafter and not after 48 months as pleaded by the

Appellant. In view of above detailed analysis, we do not find any merit

in the contentions of the Appellant and the same is rejected.

30. Issue No. (III) Whether the IA. No. 260/2023 filed by the Corporate

Debtor under Section 65 & 75 of the Code has not properly been adjudicated by

the Adjudicating Authority and whether the Impugned Order could have been

passed.

As regard, the contentions of the Appellant that the Appellant

had filed an IA No. 260 of 2023 alleging the wrong filing of application

under Section 7 of the Code by the Respondent and giving false

information in the said application filed by the Respondent before the

Adjudicating Authority, which forced the Appellant to file the said I.A

under Section 65 of the Code (Fraudulent or malicious initiation of

proceedings) and Section 75 of the Code (Punishment for false

information furnished in application). We note that in IA No. 260 of

2023, only general averments are made and no specific details have

been furnished. In any case, such application does not change the

contour of the application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section

7 of the Code, which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority and

the Impugned Order was passed.

Page 24 of 26 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

During pleading the Appellant also brought to the notice, that

the Appellant had filed one IA under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016

r/w Section 340 of the CRPC, 1973 r/w Section 195 & 200 of IPC for

seeking permission to prosecute the authorised officer of the

Respondent for giving false evidence in the proceedings and the said

application is stated to be pending before the Adjudicating Authority.

Again, we would like to observe that such application does not change

the fate of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code. The

Appellant can continue to take legal remedies if any, in accordance with

law for any other grievance he may have.

We amplify that to satisfy the Section 7 application, the basic

ingredients as stipulated in the Code and as elaborated in great details

by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various judgements including in

matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v/s. ICICI Bank [(2018) 1 SCC

407] that there should be debt, there should be default and threshold

should be more than Rs. 1 Crore for allowing application filed under

Section 7 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority. We find that all

ingredients have been met and as such the Adjudicating Authority has

correctly allowed the application under Section 7 of the Code filed by

the Respondent.

Page 25 of 26

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1140 & 1141 of 2024

31. We do not find any error in the Impugned Order. The Appeal devoid of

any merit stand rejected. No cost. I.A., if any, are closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Sim

Page 26 of 26