Techengg Project Services &Equipments ... vs 1. Mr. Jayeshsanghrajka

In the matter of: Techengg Project Services & Equipments (I) Pvt Ltd Appellant Vs Jayesh Sanghrajka & Anr Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Apratim Animesh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent. Mr Tishampati Sen, Ms Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand, Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Advocates for R1.

ORDER

05.09.2022: Heard Mr. Apratim Animesh Thakur, learned counsel for the

Appellant and Mr. Tishampati Sen, learned counsel for the R1/RP.

The present appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 has been preferred against an order dated 07.01.2021 passed by

the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai

Bench, Mumbai) in IA No.500/2020 in CP No.2714/2018. By the said order

the Learned Adjudicating Authority has rejected the interlocutory petition

filed by the Appellant which was filed primarily for the following reliefs:-

i) To set aside the decision of the RP partially rejecting the claim of

the applicant and direct him to admit the claim of applicant in 2

entirety to the tune of Rs.6,52,95,183/- as submitted in Form C

dated 07.12.2018.

ii) To direct the respondents to follow procedures established by law

and principles including principles of fairness, impartiality and

transparency in the conduct of Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process (CIRP) for Respondent No.2.

iii) To restrain RP from creating any third party interest and dealing

with 15 flats situated at B5/1, Lok Nisarg CHS Ltd, Lok Nisarg,

Vaishali Nagar, B.R. Road, Mulund West, Mumbai 400080 in a

manner that undermines the interest of the applicant with

respect to the claim and security interest of the applicant being

subject matter of the case at hand.

It is not in dispute that earlier the Appellant had filed a petition under

Section 7 of the IBC for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

(hereinafter referred to as CIRP) against Respondent No.2, Ariisto Developers

Pvt Ltd, due to non-payment of corporate debt to the tune of Rs.10 crores plus

Rs.4 crores interest amount. However, before admission of the petition filed

under Section 7 of the IBC an agreement was entered into in between the

Appellant and the Corporate Debtor and on the basis of the Consent Terms

which was executed in between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor on

19th July, 2018, the petition filed by the Appellant before the NCLT was

withdrawn. As per the consent on the date of execution itself Rs. 10 crore

was already received by the Appellant and thereafter for the remaining

amount of Rs.2 crores an agreement was entered into for payment of the said 3

amount in view of the Consent Terms. Payment description has been made

in Consent Term in Clause 1(g), which is at running page 236 to 237. It is

appropriate to reproduce the same i.e. 1(g) as under:

"1(g) The Respondent/Corporate Debtor undertake to the Honourable

Tribunal as under:

i) At the time of signing of these consent terms, the

Respondent/Corporate has handed over the pay order of

Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) towards the

Principal Outstanding, to the Applicant/Financial Creditor

bearing No.782581 dated June 30, 2018 drawn on HDFC

Bank Ltd, Andheri (East) Branch, Mumbai, receipt whereof

Applicant admits and acknowledges.

ii) The Respondent/Corporate Debtor further undertake to

make payment of additional sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Crores only) towards full and final one-time

settlement of the interest liability, within 180 days from the

signing of these consent terms as agreed upon to the

Applicant/Financial Creditor herein. The said payment of

Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) towards full and

final settled interest, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor

undertakes to this Honourable Tribunal to pay to the

Applicant/Financial Creditor as follows:

a) Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores only), less

applicable TDS, to be paid by the Respondent/Corporate 4

Debtor to the Applicant/Financial on or before October

18, 2018,

b) Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) less applicable

TDS, to be paid by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor to

the Applicant/Financial Creditor on or before December

2, 2018.

c) A sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) less

applicable TDS, to be paid by the Respondent/Corporate

Debtor to the Applicant/Financial Creditor on or before

January 16, 2019.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that since

terms and conditions were breached by the Corporate Debtor regarding non-

payment of Rs.2 crores the Appellant was entitled to get the earlier agreement

restored and in such a situation the Appellant was entitled to claim Rs.

Rs.6,52,95,183/-. Learned counsel for the Appellant has also referred to

Clause 1(h) of the Agreement dated 19th July, 2018 and as such he requests

for directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim to the tune of

Rs.6,52,95,183/-. Since he has referred to Clause 1(h) of the Agreement it

would be apt to reproduce the same as follows:

"h. The parties are at present not ad-idem on the deduction of TDS on sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) as payable in instalment as aforesaid. Parties with their respective chartered accountants/auditors shall meet and resolve the issues within a period of 15 days from today and arrive at a consensus. Till resolution of applicability of TDS on payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores only) in three instalments as aforesaid Corporate Debtor on July 20, 2018 shall deposit with Mr. Shyam Devani three post-dated cheques for the entire aggregate amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) as aforesaid. After expiry of 15 days from the date hereof Corporate 5

Debtor shall replace the Security Cheques with new cheques after deducting applicable TDS on the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Crores only) ("Security Cheques"). It is further agreed that if the parties alongwith their Chartered Accountants does not arrive at any consensus within the aforesaid period of 15 days, the Escrow Holder Adv. Mr. Shyam Dewani shall not handover the said cheques to the applicant herein."

Mr. Tishampati Sen, learned counsel for the RespondentNo.1 by way of

referring to impugned order submits that the learned Adjudicating Authority

has considered each and every aspect and has given detailed reasons and

reduced the claim of appellant to the tune of Rs.1 crore. He has also referred

to Clause 1(k) of the agreement dated 19.7.2018 which is at running page 238

and is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"k. It is agreed that in case of any default in making the payment of the

amounts as agreed in Clause 1(g) above in any manner whatsoever, the

Applicant/Financial Creditor shall be entitled to revive all the

proceedings in relation to payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two

crores only) or part thereof as may be left outstanding, which shall be

withdrawn at present in pursuance to the execution of these consent

terms and also take all such actions/file proceedings for the breach of

the terms of these consent terms and undertaking given to the

Honourable Tribunal, as the case may be."

Learned counsel for the Respondent by way of referring to aforesaid

agreement clause submits that in case of any deviation from the agreement

only dispute was confined to the extent of Rs.2 crores or part thereof and it

was not permissible to restore the earlier agreement. Learned Counsel for the

Respondent No1 further submits that in the present dispute fact remains that 6

CIRP was initiated on an application filed by M/s Dipco Private Ltd. He

submits that the said application was admitted on 20.11.2018. He submits

that despite the fact that as per IBC time has been prescribed for conclusion

of proceedings but by one way or the other it has been delayed and that the

proceeding is still pending before the Adjudicating Authority. The

Adjudicating has approved the resolution plan on 23.03.2021. He submits

that since the resolution plan has already been approved by the Adjudicating

Authority long back nothing is required to be adjudicating in this Appeal. He

submits that filing of the present appeal by the Appellant is an abuse of

process of law.

Besides hearing we have minutely examined the material available on

record. After going through the same, prima facie, we are of the opinion that

there is no reason for interference with impugned order by this Tribunal.

However, before proceeding we propose to reproduce the impugned order

which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority>

"1.This is an application filed by TechEngg Project Services & Equipments

(India) Private Limited against Mr. Jayesh Sanghrajka, who is the

Resolution Professional of Ariisto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called

as the "Corporate Debtor") seeking the following reliefs:

i. To set aside the decision of the RP partially rejecting the

claim of the applicant and direct him to admit the claim of

applicant in entirety to the tune of Rs.6,52,95,183/- as

submitted in Form C dated 07.12.2018.

7

ii. To direct the respondents to follow procedures established

by law and principles including principles of fairness,

impartiality and transparency in the conduct of Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for Respondent No. 02.

iii. To restrain RP from creating any third-party interest and

dealing with 15 flats situated at B5/1, Lok Nisarg CHS Ltd.,

Lok Nisarg, Vaishali Nagar, B.R. Road, Mulund West,

Mumbai - 400 080 in a manner that undermines the interest

of the applicant with respect to the claim and security

interest of the applicant being subject matter of the case at

hand.

2. The counsel for the applicant alleged that the RP has erroneously and

without application of mind, partially rejected the claim of the applicant

on the unsubstantiated and unreasoned ground, as recorded in the

minutes of the 6th CoC meeting, that the claim of the Applicant is

disputed without taking into consideration the following set of facts and

circumstances:

i. That between September, 2014 to November, 2015, the Applicant

provided financial help to the Corporate Debtor of

Rs.10,00,00,000/- at the rate of 24% per annum payable quarterly

against mortgage/sale of 15 flats.

ii. that the Corporate Debtor collaterally signed and issued various

documents in favour of the applicant including but not limited to

Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding, Deed of Mortgage, 8

Deed of Indemnity, Deed of Transfer, Power of Attorney,

Possession Letter etc. towards security but failed to provide the

original title deed, chain agreements/documents, etc. for

necessary due diligence despite repeated requests and hence

never completed the registration process of the said documents.

iii.The Corporate Debtor failed to repay the Principal amount along

with interest and hence, CP No. 425/2018 was filed under Section

7 for initiating CIRP and during the course of proceeding, prior to

the admission of the petition, the applicant and the Corporate

Debtor entered into "Consent Terms" dated 19.07.2018 for

resolution of debt and all the disputes pertaining thereto. In line of

this, the Company Petition bearing number 425 of 2018 was

dismissed as withdrawn vide an order dated 19.07.2018 of this

Tribunal.

iv. However, the Corporate Debtor miserably failed to honour

the terms of the consent and consequently there was a

breach of Consent Terms.

v. According to the Consent Terms, the Corporate Debtor was

to pay a total sum of Rs.12,00,00,000/- towards full and

final settlement of the dispute. However, as captured in

Clause 1(h), the dispute pertaining to deduction of TDS was

to be settled within a period of 15 days from the date of

Consent Terms. The disputed amount in terms of Clause(h)

was only Rs.20,00,000/- towards deduction of TDS if 9

applicable at alland the remainder of Rs.1,80,00,000/- was

admitted by the parties in any case whatsoever. However,

the Chartered Accounts of both the Applicant as well as the

Corporate Debtor discussed the TDS issue and came to the

conclusion that no TDS was required to be deducted by the

Corporate Debtor. But the Corporate Debtor raised an

unnecessary demand for furnishing a certificate as provided

in Form 26A (Rule 31 ACB) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

To this, the counsel for the applicant had replied via email

dated 17.08.2018 stating that the entire dispute pertaining

to TDS stands resolved as discussed between the Chartered

Accountants of the parties and no certificate under Form

26A(Rule 31ACB) was required. There was no reply by the

Corporate Debtor to this email and the dispute was deemed

to be resolved.

vi. The counsel for the applicant further mentioned that there

were cheques provided to the applicant by the Corporate

Debtor in respect of Clause 1(I) of the Consent Terms which

were dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient"

and a legal notice was issued by the applicant on

23.10.2018. The Counsel for the Corporate Debtor replied to

the said Notice on 25.10.2018 wherein it enclosed a Demand

Draft of Rs. 90,00,000/- and once again requested for a

certificate in pursuance of Form 26A (Rule 31ACB). 10

vii. vii. He further submitted that with a bona fide intent to close

the TDS dispute, the Applicant agreed to issue Form 26A

Certificate (Rule 31ACB) and asked the Corporate Debtor to

release the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- of the first

instalment immediately after receipt of this communication.

But despite this, the Corporate Debtor failed to comply and

blatantly breached the Consent Terms. The counsel for the

applicant therefore, stated that the Consent Terms stand

breached and the Applicant is reinstated in the original

position thereby being entitled to claim the interest in terms

of the original Agreement @24% per annum payable

quarterly which was duly computed and submitted to the

Respondent no. 01 in Form C dated 07.12.2018.

3. Because of the abovementioned reasons, the counsel for the applicant

mentioned, that the applicant was constrained to file MA No. 1953 of

2019 before this Tribunal on 29.05.2019 praying therein the partial

rejection of claim of applicant by the RP and directing him to accept the

claim in entirety to the tune of Rs.6,52,95,183/- as submitted in Form C

dated 07.12.2018. The applicant furthermore had asked in its interim

prayer to restrain Respondent No. 01 from admitting and acting in

pursuance of any Resolution Plan that undermines the interest of the

applicant with respect to the claim of the Applicant being subject matter

of the present case at hand. This application was dismissed by this 11

Tribunal vide an order dated 13.11.2019 for being premature, without

adjudicating upon the rights of the applicant on merits.

4. The counsel for the applicant mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the High Courts, in a catena of judgments, have held that in a

situation where there is breach of the settlement agreements entered into

between the parties, the cause of action cannot be construed in such an

event and cannot be merely limited to breach of settlement agreement.

Therefore, it is essentially a matter of interpretation by the Court of the

Consent Terms to determine whether the intention of the parties is clear

that by execution of the Consent Terms, the original cause of action is

discharged.

5. He further stated that a conjoint reading Clause 1(b) and 1(c) of the

Consent Terms has to be accorded and upon such a conjoint reading, it

appears that the intention of the parties is that only upon the receipt of

payment of full and final settlement amount of RS. 2,00,00,000/- against

interest due, the settlement agreement comes to full effect and the original

cause of action would stand discharged as until then all the documents

in relation to which the cause of action has arisen is kept in escrow.

Clause 1(c) makes it categorical that handing over of the documents to

the Corporate Debtor is to take place only when the full and final

settlement amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- against interest due is received

by the applicant.

6. The senior counsel appearing for the RP has denied all the contentions

levied against the RP stating that they are false, baseless and devoid of 12

merits and has submitted that he has acted according to the provisions

of the Code. He submitted that the RP has rejected the claim of the

applicant after due verification of documents submitted by the applicant

along with its proof of claim (Form C) as well as books of accounts of the

Corporate Debtor. He submitted that the RP has conducted the CIRP in a

transparent and fair manner.

7. He further stated that Mr. S Gopalkrishnan was appointed as the IRP

vide an order dated 20.11.2018 of this Tribunal. Later on, he received

around 76 claims from various persons claiming to be financial creditors

of the Corporate Debtor and upon receiving the claims and the documents

filed along therewith, the IRP was pleased to accept or reject claims. He

further mentioned that as per the list of claims of Financial Creditors as

on 07.12.2018, the IRP accepted applicant's claim amount to the tune of

Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as against the applicant's total claim of Rs.

6,52,95,183/-.

8. The present applicant was subsequently appointed as the RP in the

1st CoC meeting held on 14.12.2018 and later this Tribunal sanctioned

this appointment vide an order dated 23.01.2019.

9. He further mentioned that the RP, on persistent request of the applicant

to reconsider its claim in entirety, perused the documents on the basis of

which the claim was made. He stated that the RP also perused a copy of

Corporate Debtor's Balance Sheet dated 31.03.2018 wherein the amount

due and payable to the applicant is shown to be Rs. 10,00,00,000/-. 13

10. The counsel for the applicant stated that it is pertinent to note that

the applicant is facing serious tax demand and is in receipt of the notices

from the Income Tax Department for non-payment of TDS amount

deducted by the Corporate Debtor during the Financial Year 2015-16 &

2016-17 out of the interest amount paid and/or was payable to the

Applicant by the Corporate Debtor. He further stated that it was a ploy

by the Corporate Debtor with clear intention since beginning to confuse

and mislead the applicant and not to pay the already agreed amount to

the applicant as per the Consent Terms entered into by the applicant and

the Corporate Debtor as the Corporate Debtor is a serious defaulter in

paying the statutory dues also.

11. The Senior Counsel for the RP stated that on 19.07.2018, the

Corporate Debtor and the Applicant had settled their claims and all

disputes by entering into Consent Terms during the course of proceedings

in CP 425/2018 wherein the Corporate Debtor had agreed to pay Rs.

10,00,00,000/0- towards the principal liability and Rs. 2,00,00,000/-

towards full and final settlement of interest in the manner provided in the

Consent Terms. On bare reading of the Consent Terms, specially clauses

1, 1(a), 1(b), 4, 5 and 6, it is apparent that the parties had entered into

the aforesaid Consent Terms with an intention of full and final settlement

of all their disputes including but not limited to the one arising out of or

in connection to CP 425/2018.

12. He further stated that nowhere in the Consent Terms it is mentioned

that the applicant would be entitled to claim an alleged amount of Rs. 14

6,52,95,183/-. Rather, Clause 1(k) of the Consent Terms provides that in

case of default in Corporate Debtor's payment, the Applicant shall be

entitled to revive all proceedings in relation to payment of Rs.

2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) or any part thereof as may be

left outstanding, which shall be withdrawn at present in pursuance to

the execution of the Consent Terms and also take all such actions/file

proceedings for the breach of Consent Terms and undertaking given to

the Hon'ble Tribunal, as the case may be.

13. The Senior Counsel for the RP further alleged that pursuant to the

Consent Terms, the Corporate Debtor had paid principal amount of Rs.

10,00,00,000/- through pay order bearing no. 782581 dated 30.06.2018

drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. and this fact is not disputed by the applicant.

He alleged that this is a preferential transaction as per Section 43 of the

Code and the same can be avoided.

14. The Senior Counsel for the RP stated that the Corporate Debtor had

agreed to make payment of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- towards full and final

settlement of interest liability within 180 days in three instalments in the

following manner [Clause 1(g) of the Consent terms]:

i. Rs. 1,00,00,000/- less applicable TDS, on or before 18.10.2018:

this payment was made by the Corporate Debtor at the rate of 10%

i.e. net amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- through Demand Draft bearing

No. 148369 dated 24.10.2018 drawn on HDFC Bank which was

encashed by the Applicant and this fact has been admitted by the

applicant at para 14(k) pg.30 of its application as well as at the 15

letter marked as Annexure A-22 to the application. The Senior

counsel for RP alleged that this is a preferential transaction as per

Section 43 of the Code and the same cannot be avoided;

ii. Rs. 50,00,000/- less applicable TDS, on or before 02.12.2018;

iii. Rs. 50,00,000/- less applicable TDS, on or before 16.01.2019.

In respect of the ii. and iii. transaction which were due on

02.12.2018 and 16.01.2019 respectively, it was mentioned that

the Company Petition was admitted vide an order dated

20.11.2018 under Section 7 of the Code against the Corporate

Debtor and hence, the applicant could have claimed his

outstanding of only Rs. 1,00,00,000/- against the Corporate

Debtor to the IRP/RP.

15. The counsel further mentioned that it is pertinent to mention here that

out of total settlement amount of Rs.12,00,00,000/- agreed between the

parties as provided in the Consent Terms, the applicant had received

substantial amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/- towards principal outstanding

at the time of signing the Consent Terms and Rs.1,00,00,000/- less

applicable TDS towards interest as stated in aforementioned paras.

Stating this, he concluded that thus, the balance outstanding was

Rs.1,00,00,000/- only and therefore, the applicant's claim of

Rs.6,52,95,183/- is unreasonable, baseless and hence, inadmissible in

the light of the Consent Terms entered into by the applicant and the

Corporate Debtor.

16

16. Further, regarding the second issue of the applicant i.e. the Security

available with the Applicant against such claim, the Senior Counsel for

the RP stated that Clause 1(b) of the Consent Terms provides that upon

receipt of the principal amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/-, the applicant would

have to forthwith give up all the rights arising out of all Deeds,

Agreements Documents, Negotiable Instruments, Memorandum of

Understanding etc. executed by the Corporate Debtor in the captioned

matter. And as the applicant has admittedly received the aforesaid

principal amount upon signing of the Consent Terms, the applicant is

barred from claiming security interest.

17. The Senior Counsel for the RP further stated that the copies of the

letters submitted to the RP by the applicant vide email dated 26.05.2019

are nothing but not only various correspondences between the applicant

and the Secretary of the Society wherein the aforesaid 15 Flats of the

Corporate Debtor are situated and the same do not prove any right or

interest of the Applicant in the said 15 flats of the Corporate Debtor.

18. Making the above submissions, the Senior Counsel for the RP prayed

for the dismissal of this application on the following grounds:

i. that the applicant's claim is unreasonable, baseless and hence,

inadmissible in the light of the Consent Terms dated 19.07.2018

and the payments made by the Corporate Debtor in pursuance of

the Consent Terms;

ii. That the applicant is attempting to unjustly enrich himself by

claiming higher amount that which is actually outstanding and is 17

trying to go beyond what was agreed between the parties as

mentioned in the consent terms.

iii. That the amounts received by the applicant amount to

preferential transactions as per Section 43 of the Code;

viii. That the allegations levelled against the RP are baseless and

suffer from want of merit as he has acted according to the

provisions of law and in complete fairness.

FINDINGS

19. We have heard all both the parties, perused and taken all the

documents submitted by them into consideration. After going through the

pleadings, we believe that the RP has rightfully partially accepted the

applicant's claim after due consideration of the documents provided to

the IRP/RP. We would further like to observe that the RP has acted in

accordance with the provisions of the Code and the applicable rules and

regulations made thereunder and also followed the principles of law

including the principles of fairness, impartiality and transparency.

20. Also, the Senior Counsel for the RP had stated that even otherwise,

the applicant has submitted various documents along with its claim Form

in respect of purported/alleged claim of security interest, these

documents are without signature of either of the parties or all the parties,

without dates, without details of amount or without applicable stamp

duty or registration, as the case may be. In view of this, such documents 18

were not taken in consideration by the IRP or RP for determining the

purported/alleged claim of security interest of the applicant.

21. The Senior Counsel for the RP has already brought on record that the

Principal amount due and payable was already paid by way of a

Demand Draft bearing No. 148369. He also terms this transaction as a

preferential transaction. But this is not the subject matter of this

Application and we need not deal with it in here.

22. It is clear from the facts of the case that out of total settlement amount

of Rs.12,00,00,000/- agreed between the parties as provided in the

Consent Terms, the applicant had received substantial amount of

Rs.10,00,00,000/- towards principal outstanding at the time of signing

the Consent Terms and Rs.1,00,00,000/- less applicable TDS towards

interest and thus the balance outstanding was Rs.1,00,00,000/- only.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that this application needs to be

dismissed and there is no wrong committed by the RP in deciding upon

the claim of the applicant. With the above directions and observations,

this Interlocutory Application numbered 500 of 2020 is dismissed and is

accordingly disposed of."

It is evident, on examination of the aforesaid impugned order, that there

is no dispute regarding payment of amount which is Rs.10 crores which was

claimed by the appellant. The said amount was already received on the date

of the agreement i.e. 19.07.2018 and on the basis of the said agreement earlier

petition filed by the appellant was withdrawn. So far as amount of Rs.1 crore

is concerned para 14(i) of the impugned order categorically reflects that after 19

deducting Rs.10 lakhs as TDS, Rs.90 lakhs was already paid to the appellant.

Only for remaining amount of Rs.1 crore, two cheques of Rs.50 lakhs each

were issued. Dispute is only to the said amount. On examination of the claim

the RP has also accepted regarding claim of the appellant of Rs. 1 crore. We

have also perused the terms and conditions as has been explained by the

appellant as well as learned counsel for Respondent which we have quoted

hereinabove. On going through the same and in view of the fact that the

amount of Rs.10 crore was received by the appellant on 19.07.2018 and

thereafter Rs.90 lacs after deducting Rs.10 lacs as TDS, we are of the opinion

that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly approved the decision of

Resolution Professional by reducing appellants' claim to Rs.1 crore only.

There was no reason for the Adjudicating Authority to pass a different order.

Moreover there is no dispute on approval of Resolution Plan by the

Adjudicating Authority.

We find no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed without

cost.

(Justice Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member (Technical) Bm/gc