Santanu Kumar Mohapatra, Member (T)
1. M/s. SCSL Buildwell Private Limited, claiming as the financial creditor, has filed this application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 (for brevity 'the Code') read with rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (for brevity
'the Rules') with a prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent company, M/s. Pal Infrastructure &
Developers Private Limited, referred to as the corporate debtor.
2. The Respondent Company M/s. Pal Infrastructure 8B Developers Private Limited CIN No. U70109DL2006PTC149560, against whom initiation of
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has been prayed for, was incorporated on 09.06.2006 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having
its registered office at B-45, Shakti Apartments Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. Since the registered office of the respondent corporate debtor is
in Delhi, this Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent corporate debtor under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code.
3. It is the case of the applicant that on 17.12.2010 the Applicant Financial Creditor and Respondent Corporate Debtor had entered into an agreement
whereby the Financial Creditor agreed to purchase 20 flats in a Real Estate Project named as ""Icon Tower"" proposed to be developed by the
Corporate Debtor at Sector 70-A, Gurgaon, Haryana.
4. It is stated in the application that the price agreed between the parties for the purchase of said 20 flats by Financial Creditor is detailed in Clause 5
of the Agreement dated 17.12.2010 executed between the parties. It is also submitted that the Financial Creditor had paid till date an amount
equivalent to INR 7.92 Crore to the Corporate Debtor. The Financial Creditor has placed copies of the receipts to substantiate the payment of Rs.
7.92 Crore made to the Corporate Debtor.
5. It is claimed that as per the agreement the flats were to be delivered by Corporate Debtor on or before 11.11.2013. It is also alleged that as per
clause 7 of the agreement any delay by the Corporate Debtor in completing the construction and handing over the possession thereof would make the
Corporate Debtor liable for compensating the Financial Creditor at the rate of 1% per month of the amount paid by the Financial Creditor.
6. It is also the case of the applicant that the Respondent Corporate Debtor has failed to complete the construction and deliver the possession of the
flats as agreed.
7. Consequently, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement pursuant to which Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi (former judge of Supreme
Court of India) was appointed as Sole Arbitrator on 12.03.2014 to adjudicate the disputes between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor.
8. The Ld. Arbitrator passed an award dated 22.12.2017, inter alia, directing the Respondent Corporate Debtor to refund an amount of INR. 7.92
Crores along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of deposit till date of repayment. In addition, Compensation @ 1% per month for the entire
period along with interest and cost were awarded.
9. The Financial Creditor submits that despite the award and several demands, the Corporate Debtor has failed to pay the debts. It is also submitted
that the disputes between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor stood adjudicated in terms of Award dated 22.12.2017.
10. It is claimed at part-IV of the application that the Corporate Debtor is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 19,32,89,262.81/- as on 31.05.2018 to the
petitioner Financial Creditor. The date of disbursement along with receipts of payment have been placed on record. In addition, the Computation of the
amount claimed along with interest calculation has also been placed on record.
11. Respondent corporate debtor has filed its reply on 27.09.2018. Rejoinder to the reply by applicant financial creditor was filed on 09.10.2018.
12. We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the case records including the written submissions filed by the parties.
13. The scheme of the Code provides for triggering the insolvency resolution process by three categories of persons namely,
a) Financial creditor
b) Operational creditor, and
c) Corporate debtor itself.
14. The procedure in relation to the Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by the ""Financial Creditor"" is delineated under Section 7 of
the Code, wherein only ""Financial Creditor""/""Financial Creditors"" can file an application. As per Section 7(1) of the Code an application could be
maintained by a Financial Creditor either by itself or jointly with other Financial Creditors. Section 7 of the Code thus mandates that only the applicant
Financial Creditor"" has to prove the default. In other words, even if there is a clear default, the application under Section 7 of the Code is not
maintainable in case the applicant is not a financial creditor. Therefore, in order to maintain the present application filed under Section 7 of the Code
for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent corporate debtor, the present applicant has to satisfy that it comes
within the definition of ""Financial Creditor"".
15. In the reply and written submission, one of the main objections raised by the respondent is that the applicant does not come under the definition of
'Financial Creditor' and the debt claimed is not a 'financial debt'.
16. The expressions ""Financial Creditor"" and ""Financial debt"" have been defined in Section 5 (7) and 5 (8) of the Code, which are reproduced below.
5. In this part, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(7) ""financial creditor"" means any person to whom a financial debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or
transferred to;
(8) ""financial debt"" means a debt alongwith interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and includes--
a) money borrowed against the payment of interest;
b) any amount raised by acceptance under any acceptance credit facility or its de-materialised equivalent;
c) any amount raised pursuant to any note purchase facility or the issue of bonds, notes, debentures, loan stock or any similar instrument;
d) the amount of any liability in respect of any lease or hire purchase contract which is deemed as a finance or capital lease under the Indian
Accounting Standards or such other accounting standards as may be prescribed;
e) receivables sold or discounted other than any receivables sold on non-recourse basis;
f) any amount raised under any other transaction, including any forward sale or purchase agreement, having the effect of a borrowing;
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-clause-
(I) Any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing and
(II) The expressions, ""allottee"" and real estate project shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (d) and (zn) of Section 2 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016(16 of 2016)
g) any derivative transaction entered into in connection with protection against or benefit from fluctuation in any rate or price and for calculating the
value of any derivative transaction, only the market value of such transaction shall be taken into account;
h) any counter-indemnity obligation in respect of a guarantee, indemnity, bond, documentary letter of credit or any other instrument issued by a bank or
financial institution;
i) the amount of any liability in respect of any of the guarantee or indemnity for any of the items referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (h) of this clause.
17. Clause (8) of Section 5 of the Code has been amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 6th
June, 2018. In view of the explanation inserted in the revised definition, it has been abundantly made clear that any amount raised from an allottee
under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing and thus will come within the definition of
'Financial Debt' under the Code. Definition of 'Financial Debt' has been amended to remove any cloud and to specifically include dues of the home
buyers. Amendment Act leaves no doubt that home buyers are ""Financial Creditors"". Accordingly, allottees/home buyers being ""Financial Creditors"" in
terms of Explanation to Section 5 (8) (c) of the Code, can initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the defaulting builder or developer.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2019 SCC
Online SC 1005; while upholding constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 held that the allottees/home
buyers were included in the main provision, i.e. Section 5(8)(f) with effect from the inception of the Code, the explanation being added in 2018 merely
to clarify doubts that had arisen.
19. Hontile Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has concluded as follows:
Conclusion
i. The Amendment Act to the Code does not infringe Articles 14, 19(l)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.
ii The RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the Amendment Act. It is only in the event of conflict that the Code will
prevail over the RERA. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies, such allottees of flats/apartments
being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the Code.
iii. Section 5(8)(f) as it originally appeared in the Code being a residuary provision, always subsumed within it allottees of flats/apartments. The
explanation together with the deeming fiction added by the Amendment Act is only clarificatory of this position in law."" (Emphasis given)
20. In view of the proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allottees/home buyers are to be regarded as financial creditors in terms of
Section 5(8)(f) of the Code. Hon'ble Supreme Court further made it clear that the allottees/home buyers can avail the remedies available under the
provisions of the Code.
21. In the present case Petitioner was allotted 20 flats in a Real Estate Project named as ""Icon Tower"" vide agreement dated 17.12.2010. In addition,
the applicant has also received an Arbitration award dated 22.12.2017 in its favour for an amount Rs. 7.92 Crores as price of the 20 flats paid by it,
with interest, compensation and cost.
22. The relevant portion of the Award dated 22.12.2017 runs as under:
.............................. the claimant is entitled to refund of Rs. 7.92 crore paid by it as price of the flats, which the respondent had agreed to sell.
Accordingly, the respondent is directed to refund the price paid by the claimant in instalments (total amounting to Rs. 7.92 crore)...........
(emphasis given).
23. Since the amount has been raised from the petitioner/allottee under a real estate project, not only the debt has a commercial effect of borrowings
and come within the scope of 'financial debt' but also the petitioner comes within the definition of 'financial creditor'. That apart the award dated
22.12.2017 given in favour of the applicant towards price of the flats bear interest and compensation and therefore, has consideration for time value of
money and accordingly comes within the purview of ""financial debt"".
24. The next objection of the Respondent that the applicant is a co-investor will not change the nature of the award based on which the present claim
has been made. It is reiterated that the award is clearly in respect of price of flats and acknowledged the applicant as purchaser of flats and therefore,
the amount of award cannot be termed as 'operational debt' as alleged by the Respondent.
25. Accordingly, the petitioner being a financial creditor can invoke Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the code against the
respondent corporate debtor in case of default in repayment of financial debt.
26. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by Financial Creditor is regulated by the provision engrafted in Section 7 of the Code, which
reads as under:
7. Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor.--
(1) A financial creditor either by itself or jointly with other financial creditors may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution
process against a corporate debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this subsection, a default includes a default in respect of a financial debt owed not only to the applicant financial
creditor but to any other financial creditor of the corporate debtor.
(2) The financial creditor shall make an application under sub-section (1) in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be
prescribed.
(3) The financial creditor shall, along with the application furnish--
(a) record of the default recorded with the information utility or such other record or evidence of default as may be specified;
(b) the name of the resolution professional proposed to act as an interim resolution professional; and
(c) any other information as may be specified by the Board.
(4) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), ascertain the existence of a default
from the records of an information utility or on the basis of other evidence furnished by the financial creditor under sub-section (3).
(5) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that--
(a) a default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed
resolution professional, it may, by order, admit such application; or
(b) default has not occurred or the application under sub-section (2) is incomplete or any disciplinary -6- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 428
of 2018 proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, reject such application: Provided that the Adjudicating
Authority shall, before rejecting the application under clause (b) of sub-section (5), give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application
within seven days of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority.
(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (5).
(7) The Adjudicating Authority shall communicate--
(a) the order under clause (a) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor and the corporate debtor;
(b) the order under clause (b) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor, within seven days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case
may be.
27. Dealing with the ambit and scope of Section 7 of the Code in ""Innovative Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors."" reported in (2018)1 SCC 407,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
28. When it comes to a financial creditor triggering the process, Section 7 becomes relevant. Under the explanation to Section 7(1), a default is in
respect of a financial debt owed to any financial creditor of the corporate debtor - it need not be a debt owed to the applicant financial creditor. Under
Section 7(2), an application is to be made under sub-section (1) in such form and manner as is prescribed, which takes us to the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Under Rule 4, the application is made by a financial creditor in Form 1 accompanied
by documents and records required therein. Form 1 is a detailed form in 5 parts, which requires particulars of the applicant in Part I, particulars of the
corporate debtor in Part II, particulars of the proposed interim resolution professional in part III, particulars of the financial debt in part IV and
documents, records and evidence of default in part V. Under Rule 4(3), the applicant is to dispatch a copy of the application filed with the adjudicating
authority by registered post or speed post to the registered office of the corporate debtor. The speed, within which the adjudicating authority is to
ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or on the basis of evidence furnished by the financial creditor, is
important. This it must do within 14 days of the receipt of the application. It is at the stage of Section 7(5), where the adjudicating authority is to be
satisfied that a default has occurred, that the corporate debtor is entitled to point out that a default has not occurred in the sense that the ""debt"", which
may also include a disputed claim, is not due. A debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact. The moment the adjudicating authority is
satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify
the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. Under subsection (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate
the order passed to the financial creditor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be.
28. The present application under Section 7 of the Code for initiation Corporate Resolution Insolvency Process has been filed by petitioner financial
creditor in Form-1 in terms of Rule 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 accompanied with required
information, documents and records as prescribed under the Rules.
29. The applicant financial creditor has proposed the name of Mr. Dilip Kumar Niranjan, for appointment as Interim Resolution Professional having
registration number IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00552/2017-18/11690, resident of 255, 2nd floor, D-21, Corporate Park, Dwarka Sector-21, New Delhi-
110075 with email-id dilip.niranjan@gmail.com. Mr. Dilip Kumar Niranjan has agreed to accept the appointment as the interim resolution professional
and has signed a communication dated 08.06.2018 in FORM 2 in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2016. There is a declaration made by him that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against him in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board
of India or elsewhere. In addition, further necessary disclosures have been made by Mr. Dilip Kumar Niranjan as per the requirement of the IBBI
Regulations. Accordingly, he satisfies the requirement of Section 7 (3) (b) of the Code.
30. It is reiterated that the Form-1 filed in the present case under Section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4 of the Rules, shows that the Form is
complete in all respect and there is no infirmity in the same.
31. The Respondent has taken another objection that the award dated 22.12.2017 has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 which is pending before Hon'ble High Court in O.M.P. No. 118 of 2018.
32. In this regard it is pertinent to note here that there has been no stay order against the arbitral award dated 22.12.2017. Besides, there is no dispute
that the applicant had disbursed Rs. 7.92 Crores to the Respondent Corporate Debtor since the year 2010 for purchase of 20 flats. There is also an
agreement for purchase of said flats executed on 17.12.2010. The applicant has also placed receipts in support of the claim of disbursement. It is
accordingly seen that neither the possession of the flats has been given to the petitioner nor the Corporate Debtor has returned even the amounts
collected from the petitioners since the year 2010. Besides the award the applicant has also placed sufficient evidence of existence of financial debt
and default.
33. Accordingly, the ground that the award has been challenged and disputed will not cut any ice so long as the debt is due and payable. The Code
requires the adjudicating authority to only ascertain and record satisfaction in a summary adjudication as to the occurrence of default before admitting
the application.
34. Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of Harkirat S. Bedi Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce CA (AT) (Insolvency) 499 of 2019 has observed that:
even if a claim is disputed and if the amount payable is more than Rupees 1 lakh, the application u/s 7 of the I&B Code is maintainable. Mere
pendency of the case before the DRT for adjudicating of such disputed amount cannot be a ground to reject the application u/s 7 of the I&B Code, if
the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that there is a 'debt' and 'default' and the application is complete.
35. The next objection raised by respondent is for consideration as to whether respondent corporate debtor has committed default in payment of the
financial debt.
36. In this regard it is seen that applicant has furnished details receipts given by the respondent and copy of agreement dated 17.12.2010, in support of
disbursement of amount to the respondent corporate debtor. Petitioner has also relied upon the Arbitral award dated 22.12.2017 wherein the
respondent was directed to refund the amount paid by the applicant as price of the flats.
37. It is also appropriate to mention here that under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016)(RERA) if the promoter
fails to complete or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, he must
return the amount received by him in respect of such apartment etc. with such interest as may be prescribed and must, in addition, compensate the
allottee in case of any loss caused to him.
38. Similarly, under Section 19 of RERA, the allottee shall be entitled to claim possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, or
refund of amount paid along with interest in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale.
39. However, in the present case neither the possession of the flats has been given to the petitioner nor the Corporate Debtor has returned even the
amounts collected from the petitioners since the year 2010 despite award given in favour of petitioner under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
There is thus sufficient material on record to conclude that respondent corporate debtor has committed default in repayment of the financial debt.
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Ranbah Vs. Unitech Limited reported in 2017 SCC online NCDRC 525 decided on 05.10.2017 has
observed that when a Builder is not in a position to deliver possession of property for long time, has to refund the amount with interest as the allottee
cannot be expected to wait for possession of the apartment for indefinite period.
41. In the present case Financial debt is outstanding since the year 2010. There is no denial of default and the amount of default exceeds much more
than Rupees 1 lakh. The threshold limit to trigger the Code is purposely kept low at only one lakh rupees, making it clear that even small individuals
may also trigger the Code as financial creditors. In view of Section 4 of the Code, the moment default is Rupees one lakh or more, the application to
trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Code is maintainable. Once there is a debt and default and the application are complete the
Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the application preferred under Section 7 of the Code.
42. Under sub-section 5 (a) of Section 7 of the code, the application filed by the applicant financial creditor has to be admitted on satisfaction that:
1. Default has occurred.
2. Application is complete, and
3. No disciplinary proceeding against the proposed IRP is pending.
43. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited V. Kirusa Software Private Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 4532 at
Para 19 has observed that:
Once the adjudicating authority/Tribunal is satisfied as to the existence of the default and has ensured that the application is complete and no
disciplinary proceedings are pending against the proposed resolution professional, it shall admit the application. The adjudicating authority/Tribunal is
not required to look into any other criteria for admission of the application.
44. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion it is seen that the applicant being home buyer comes within the definition of Financial Creditor. The
material placed on record further confirms that applicant financial creditor had disbursed the money to the respondent corporate debtor as
consideration for purchase of flats. Though considerable period has since lapsed the possession of the flats has not been given to the petitioner. Even
the principal amount disbursed has not been repaid by the respondent corporate debtor despite Arbitral award given in favour of the applicant. It is
accordingly reiterated that respondent corporate debtor has committed default in repayment of the outstanding financial debt which exceeds much
above the statutory limit of rupees one Lakh. Besides it is also seen that the application filed in Form - I under Section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4
of the Rules is complete and there is no infirmity in the same. Moreover, the material on record reveals that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending
against the proposed IRP. In the facts we are satisfied that the present application is complete and there has been a default in payment of the financial
debt and that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed IRP and therefore, the applicant financial creditor is entitled to initiate
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent corporate debtor under Section 7 of the Code
45. In view of the above discussion and in terms of Section 7(5) (a) of the Code, the present application is admitted.
46. The judgment in this matter could not be pronounced earlier as the issue concerning Constitutional validity of explanation to sub section 8 (f) of
Section 5 of the Code, 2016 was subject matter of challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a bunch of petitions. In the lead case titled as
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Another v. Union of India & Ors. (Supra) the judgment has now been pronounced on 09.08.2019.
We have gone through the judgment and find that the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court do not in any manner advance the case of the
Corporate Debtor and the petition deserves to be admitted. That apart as per available records it is seen that at no stage possession of the flats has
been offered to the petitioner.
47. Mr. Dilip Kr Niranjan, having registration number IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00552/2017-18/11690, resident of 255, 2nd Floor, D-21, Corporate Park,
Dwarka, Sector - 21, New Delhi-110075 with email-id dilip.niranjan@gmail.com is appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional.
48. We direct the applicant Financial Creditor to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs with the Interim Resolution Professional namely Mr. Dilip Kr Niranjan to
meet out the expenses to perform the functions assigned to him in accordance with Regulation 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016. The needful shall be done within three days from the date of receipt of this
order by the Financial Creditor. The said amount however be subject to adjustment towards Resolution Process cost as per rules and shall be paid
back to the Financial Creditor.
49. In pursuance of Section 13(2) of the Code, we direct that public announcement shall be made by the Interim Resolution Professional immediately
(3 days as prescribed by Explanation to Regulation 6(1) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016) with regard to admission of this application under Section 7 of
the Insolvency 8B Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
50. We also declare moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. The necessary consequences of imposing the moratorium flows from the
provisions of Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Code. Thus, the following prohibitions are imposed:
(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or
order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action
under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
51. It is made clear that the provisions of moratorium shall not apply to transactions which might be notified by the Central Government or the supply
of the essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor as may be specified, are not to be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the
moratorium period. In addition, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 which has come into force w.e.f. 06.06.2018, the
provisions of moratorium shall not apply to the surety in a contract of guarantee to the corporate debtor in terms of Section 14(3)(b) of the Code.
52. The Interim Resolution Professional shall perform all his functions contemplated, inter-alia, by Sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 of the Code and
transact proceedings with utmost dedication, honesty and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code, Rules and Regulations. It is further
made clear that all the personnel connected with the Corporate Debtor, its promoters or any other person associated with the Management of the
Corporate Debtor are under legal obligation under Section 19 of the Code to extend every assistance and cooperation to the Interim Resolution
Professional as may be required by him in managing the day to day affairs of the 'Corporate Debtor'. In case there is any violation committed by the
ex-management or any tainted/illegal transaction by ex-directors or anyone else, the Interim Resolution Professional would be at liberty to make
appropriate application to this Tribunal with a prayer for passing an appropriate order. The Interim Resolution Professional shall be under duty to
protect and preserve the value of the property of the 'Corporate Debtor' as a part of its obligation imposed by Section 20 of the Code and perform all
his functions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code, Rules and Regulations. 53. The office is directed to communicate a copy of the
order to the Financial Creditor, the Corporate Debtor, the Interim Resolution Professional and the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana
at the earliest possible but not later than seven days from today. The Registrar of Companies shall update its website by updating the status of
'Corporate Debtor' and specific mention regarding admission of this petition must be notified to the public at large. 05.09.2020
