Invoice
No.","Date of
Invoice","Amount
(INR)","Amount
Paid","Amount
Overdue
817,21.02.2019,"11,44,177","44,347.25","10,99,829.75
864,23.02.2019,"9,09,363",Nil,"9,09,363
892,28.02.2019,"1,17,842",Nil,"1,17,842
,,,Total,"21,27,034.75
ii. The applicant is a proprietorship firm acting through its proprietor by Shipra Somani, however, Mr. Arun Somani husband of Shipra Somani, the key",,,,
persons, and looks after the day to day business of the applicant.",,,,
iii. Further, the applicant is facilitator in between the actual manufacturer/supplier and the respondent company during the financial year 2018-19,",,,,
respondent purchased the textile goods/articles worth Rs/-26908329 through the applicant. The last sale/purchase transactions took placed on 28th,,,,
February 2019.,,,,
iv. Further, the applicant through its e-mail IDs jailaxmitraders2019@gmail.com & mayanklakhotia15@gmail.com have time and again sent invoices to",,,,
the respondents after delivering the goods/articles, and the timely payments have been made to the applicant against the supply of goods/articles.",,,,
v. However, the applicant on some occasions without even any demand raised from the respondent side dumped the goods/articles of respondent's",,,,
company factory due to which certain disputes arose between the parties, and on 22nd May 2019 Arun Somani sent whatsapp message to Shri Vineet",,,,
Yadav accountant at respondent company, settling that he is willing to settle the accounts in case respondent company makes a payment of Rs/- 25",,,,
Lacs and also promise to issue a credit note against the balance amount, and on 24th May 2019, applicant through Arun Somani again messaged on",,,,
whatsapp to Shri Vineet Yadav to check the status of the proposed settlement and Shri Vineet Yadav accepted the settlement proposed by the,,,,
applicant and sent photos of cheques number to the applicant.,,,,
vi. That on 24.05.2019 at 3:16 PM Vineet Yadav on whatsapp message requested Shri Arun Somani to send a mail confirming the settlement reached,,,,
between the parties. Mr. Arun Somani immediately at about 3:17 PM sent a whatsapp message confirming that account stands settled, and requested",,,,
for e-mail to send the mail confirming the settlement reached between the parties at 3:22 PM. At 3:22 PM, Sh. Arun Somani wrote a whatsapp",,,,
message to Sh. Vineet Yadav stating he will send the email confirming the settlement on atulgarg.maysheel@gmail.com in five minutes. Copy of the,,,,
whatsapp chat between Sh. Arun Somani and accountant of the respondent company dated 24.05.2019 is annexed as Annexure-4.,,,,
vii. That on 24.05.2019 at 3:34 PM, applicant through its employee's id 'mayanklakhotia15@gmail.com' sent an email to the respondent on its email id",,,,
atulgarg.mayasheel@gmail.com stating that after the payment of 25,00,000/- through cheques mentioned below, account will stand settled. A",,,,
photocopy of the email was also sent on applicant's email id jailaxmitraders2019@gmail.com. 30.05.2019- 10,00,000/- (Chq. No. 018354)27.05.2019 -",,,,
5,00,000/- (Chq. No. 018322)28.05.2019 - 5,00,000/- (Chq. No. 018323)01.06.2019-5,00,000/- (Chq. No. 018325) Copy of the email dated 24.05.2019",,,,
sent by the applicant to respondent is annexed as ANNEXURE-5.,,,,
viii. That again on 24.05.2019 at 3:49, applicant through its employee's id 'mayanklakhotia15@gmail.com' sent an email to the respondent stating that",,,,
against the payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- amount of Rs. 47,54,016.75/- stands settled. Applicant also promised that after receiving the cheques, applicant",,,,
will send the credit note of balance amount of Rs. 22,54,016.75/- through courier to the respondent. Copy of the email dated 24.05.2019 sent by the",,,,
applicant to respondent is annexed as ANNEXURE-6.,,,,
ix. That however on 24.05.2019, accountant of the respondent again spoke to the Mr. Arum Somani of the applicant firm over the telephone and",,,,
apprised the applicant about the difference of Rs. 1,39,000/- which was found during the reconciliation of accounts. It is submitted that the difference",,,,
of Rs. 1,39,000/- in the accounts of the parties arose as applicant didn't take note of (1) Debit Note of Rs. 1,23,916/- generated against the return of",,,,
goods, (2) The amount of Rs. 6,000/- deducted towards the non-supply of advance shipping Note, (3) Rs. 9084/- deducted towards rounding off the",,,,
balance amount, which stood debited in the books of the respondent.",,,,
x. That the amount of Rs. 3,61,000/- as agreed after deducting Rs. 1,39,000/- was communicated to the applicant over the telephone and accordingly,",,,,
Cheque No. 018325 was replaced with Cheque No. 018336.,,,,
xi. That respondent dispatched the four cheque amounting to Rs. 23,61,000/- as mentioned above against the full and final settlement of the accounts",,,,
to the applicant through courier Docket No. V52993952 dated 24.05.2019 which was received by the applicant on 25.05.2019. Thereafter, the said",,,,
cheques were presented in the bank by the applicant and the same got honoured on 27.05.2019, 28.05.2019 and 30.05.2019 respectively.",,,,
xii. That however the credit note as promised by the applicant through its email dated 24.05.2019 has yet not been received by the respondent.,,,,
Respondent has time and again requested the applicant to issue a credit note, however the same has not been acted upon by the applicant in breach of",,,,
the terms of the mutual agreement dated 24.05.2019.,,,,
xiii. That it is humbly submitted that accounts after accord and satisfaction to the mutual settlements terms agreed between the parties stands settled,,,,
and nothing remains to be paid. Copy of the Ledger of the respondent from the period 01.07.2018 to 30.05.2019 is annexed as ANNEXURE-9.,,,,
However applicant with the ulterior motive and in suppression of relevant and material facts filed the present proceedings,,,,
xiv. The applicant in reply to the corporate-debtors, filed a rejoinder and by filing rejoinders, applicant submitted that corporate-debtor has neither",,,,
disputed the unpaid invoices nor the existence of unpaid operational debt but has falsely stated that the unpaid operational debt was waived off by one,,,,
Mr. Arun Somani.,,,,
xv. Further the applicant is engaged in the wholesale trade of hosiery items and is not a facilitator as claimed by the corporate-debtor, the goods sold",,,,
by the applicant to the corporate-debtor are at first place purchased by the applicant and as such are the property of the applicant.,,,,
xvi. Further Arun Somani is an independent facilitator between various sellers and purchasers and he is neither a key persons nor an employee or,,,,
agent of the applicant and as such has no authority to act on behalf of the applicant.,,,,
xvii. Further, no discount to the waiver and much less settlement in respect of the unpaid operational debt was ever offered by the applicant to the",,,,
corporate-debtor. The corporate-debtor had not adduced any document credit note or communication from the applicant.,,,,
xviii. Further, the facilitator has also categorically admitted that no settlement was ever discussed by the corporate-debtor on behalf of the applicant",,,,
and the corporate-debtor has concealed the communications with the facilitator which are subsequent in dates to communication and he referred the,,,,
communication which the corporate-debtor referred in its reply as Annexure 3 to this.,,,,
xix. Further, the applicant had send a legal notice dated 29.07.2019 and statuary demand notice under the IB Code dated 06th August 2019 annexed",,,,
as ANNEXURE A-5 & A-6 respectively to the application and both of which were left un replied by corporate-debtor. Furthermore, the corporate-",,,,
debtor has till date never requested for any credit note in respect of the alleged settlement.,,,,
xx. In support of its contention of the corporate-debtor, applicant has also enclosed the whatsapp communications between the two.",,,,
20. Heard the counsel for the applicant as well as corporate-debtor and perused the reply and rejoinder filed on behalf of the parties as well as,,,,
document enclosed with the applications, reply and rejoinder.",,,,
21. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that he sold hosiery items worth Rs/-2.69 crores and received Rs/- 2.47 crores, but the",,,,
corporate-debtor has not paid the remaining operational debt of Rs/- 21.27 Lacs.,,,,
22. He further submitted that thereafter, operational-creditor sent the legal notice dated 29th July 2019 and statutory demand notice dated 6th August",,,,
2019 through e-mail and post both of which were duly delivered but no reply was sent by the corporate-debtor.,,,,
23. He further submitted that the corporate-debtor had knowledge that the facilitator Arun Somani was acting as an independent facilitator for various,,,,
sellers and had no financial interest or authority over any seller.,,,,
24. He further submitted that on 2nd August 2018, the facilitator sent the ledger account and followed up for unpaid dues of M/s. Athletic Class LLP",,,,
with Mr. Atul Garg, Managing Director of the corporate-debtor and this fact has not been disputed by the corporate-debtor.",,,,
25. He further submitted that the corporate-debtor placed reliance upon the whatsapp message dated 22nd May 2019 between the facilitator and the,,,,
accountant and the related e-mail at 24th May 2019 as referred in serial 6 which shows that there was no settlement between the two.,,,,
26. He further submitted that averment of the corporate-debtor that the outstanding debt has been paid off by way of settlement/discount offered by,,,,
the facilitator is baseless and false.,,,,
27. He further submitted that the corporate-debtor did not raise any notice of dispute as mandate under Section 8(2) of the IB, Code and it is equally",,,,
well settled that in interpreting a statue, effort should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the legislature and in this regard he",,,,
placed reliance upon a decision reported in (2005) 2 SCC 271.,,,,
28. He further submitted that the corporate-debtor is trying to raise a frivolous dispute.,,,,
29. He further submitted that the disputes must be between the two parties that is in between the operational-creditor and the corporate-debtor and,,,,
not in between the third parties, as held by the Hon'ble NCLAT in Chetan Sharma Vs. Jai Laxmi Solvents (P) Ltd. & Anr. Company Appeal (AT)",,,,
(Insolvency) No. 66 of 2017.,,,,
30. On the other hand, Learned counsel appearing for the corporate-debtor (""hereinafter referred as CD"") in course of arguments submitted that the",,,,
present proceeding is illegal, and instituted to extract the money from the respondent, which has already been settled by Arun Somani.",,,,
31. He further submitted that the present proprietorship firm is though registered in the name of Shipra Somani wife of Arun Somani but in fact it is,,,,
being run by the Arun Somani, who sent the invoices to the respondent through its e-mail on 20th February 2019, 19th February 2019, 15th February",,,,
2019, 7th February 2019 and 5th January 2019.",,,,
32. He further submitted that the alleged debt of Rs/-21,27034.75 has already been settled by the CD in terms of the settlement proposed by the Arun",,,,
Somani through the whatsapp and he placed reliance upon the whatsapp chat between the Arun Somani and the CD.,,,,
33. He further submitted that in terms of settlement Arun Somani promised to issue credit note against the balance amount of Rs/- 25 Lacs and the,,,,
respondents had accepted the settlement on 24th May 2019 and sent the photo copy of the cheques and Arun Somani through the whatsapp message,,,,
informed that the account has been settled.,,,,
34. He further submitted that the applicant through its e-mail ID mayanklakhotia15@gmail.com sent an e-mail to the respondent stating against the 25,,,,
Lacs amount of Rs/- 47540.125 has been settled.,,,,
35. He further submitted that through the whatsapp the adjustment proposed by respondent was accepted by the Arun Somani and the deduction of,,,,
Rs/- 1,23,916 has been acknowledged by the applicant in its ledger.",,,,
36. He further submitted that on 24th June 2019 Arun Somani sent a message on whatsapp to the respondent, asking for balance payment to which",,,,
reply by stating the amount stand settled.,,,,
37. He further submitted that settlement arrived on whatsapp chat can be looked into by the Hon'ble Court and in this regard, he placed reliance upon",,,,
a decision of NCLAT in the case of Bhandari Hosiery Export Ltd. & Ors. Vs. In-Time Garments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,,,,
38. He further submitted that in the matter of Vinod Mittal vs. Rays Power Experts Pvt. Ltd. in Company Appeal No. 851 of 2019 the Hon'ble,,,,
NCLAT held that CD can point out existence of dispute even during hearing of the application.,,,,
39. He further submitted that the demand notice dated 6th August 2019 under Section 8 of the IB, Code has been sent by the sole proprietorship firm",,,,
hence cannot be taken as a valid notice and in this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision M/s. Shiv Shakti Vs. Pratham Housing Pvt. Ltd.",,,,
decided in Company Petitions (IB) 529 of 2017.,,,,
40. In the light of submissions, raised on behalf of the parties, now we shall consider the case in hand.",,,,
41. We have gone through the averments made in the applications, reply and rejoinders as well as document enclosed with the application, reply and",,,,
rejoinders and the decisions on which both the parties have placed their reliance, and we find that it is admitted fact that on 6th August 2019, a",,,,
demand notice was prepared and it was sent on 8th August 2019, on the registered address of the CD and same was duly delivered on 9th August",,,,
2019 on the registered address of the CD, which would be evident from the tracking report available as Page 53 of the paper book.",,,,
42. We further find that after receipt of the demand notice the respondent has not sent the reply to the demand notice as required under Section 8(2),,,,
of the IB, Code.",,,,
43. At this juncture, we would like to refer the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the CD, who in course of his",,,,
argument submitted that, since the demand notice was sent by the sole proprietorship firm, therefore, it cannot be taken as a valid notice. He further",,,,
submitted that even if no reply to the demand notice is given, if the CD is able to establish the pre-existing disputes, that can be looked into even if no",,,,
reply of the demand notice is given.,,,,
44. In the light of that submissions, when we have gone through the demand notice sent by the operational-creditor, then we find, demand notice was",,,,
sent through its proprietor Ms. Shipra Somani and not in the name of M/s. Jai Laxmi Traders. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that since it",,,,
was sent in the name of proprietorship firm, therefore, it is not the proper demand notice is not correct rather we are of the view that since it was sent",,,,
through the Shipra Somani, hence it is maintainable and same is a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the IB, Code.",,,,
45. Now we shall consider this submission of CD, if no reply to the demand notice is sent and if after appearance of the CD any reply is filed on",,,,
behalf of the CD raising the pre-existing disputes in that case that can be taken into considerations.,,,,
46. To answer this submission, we would like to refer the provisions contained under Section 8 and 9 of the IB, Code and same is quoted below:",,,,
Section: 8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid",,,,
operational debtor copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as,,,,
may be prescribed.,,,,
(2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1) bring",,,,
to the notice of the operational creditor,,,,
-a) Existence of a dispute, 1[if any, or] record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in",,,,
relation to such dispute; (b) The 2 [payment] of unpaid operational debt-,,,,
(i) By sending an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor; or,,,,
(ii) By sending an attested copy of record that the operational creditor has encashed a cheque issued by the corporate debtor.,,,,
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, a ""demand notice"" means a notice served by an operational creditor to the corporate debtor demanding",,,,
3[payment] operational debt in respect of which the default has occurred.""",,,,
Section 9: Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor. -,,,,
(1) After the expiry of the period of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment under sub-section (1) of section 8,",,,,
if the operational creditor does not receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under subsection (2) of section 8, the",,,,
operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process.,,,,
(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.,,,,
(3) The operational creditor shall, along with the application furnish-",,,,
(a) A copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor;,,,,
(b) An affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt;,,,,
(c) a copy of the certificate from the financial institutions maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an,,,,
unpaid operational debt 1[by the corporate debtor, if available;]",,,,
2[(d) a copy of any record with information utility confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, if",,,,
available; and,,,,
(e) Any other proof confirming that there is no payment of any unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor or such other information, as may be",,,,
prescribed.],,,,
(4) An operational creditor initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process under this section may propose a resolution professional to act as an,,,,
interim resolution professional.,,,,
(5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application under sub-section (2), by an order-",,,,
(i) Admit the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor if, -",,,,
(a) The application made under sub-section (2) is complete;,,,,
(b) There is no 3[payment] of the unpaid operational debt;,,,,
(c) The invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor;,,,,
(d) No notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility; and,,,,
(e) There is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed under sub-section (4), if any.",,,,
(ii) Reject the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, if-",,,,
(a) The application made under sub-section (2) is incomplete;,,,,
(b) There has been 1[payment] of the unpaid operational debt;,,,,
(c) The creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor;,,,,
(d) Notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or,,,,
There is a record of dispute in the information utility; or,,,,
(e) Any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional:,,,,
Provided that Adjudicating Authority, shall before rejecting an application under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) give a notice to the applicant to rectify the",,,,
defect in his application within seven days of the date 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) of this section.,,,,
47. Mere plain reading of the provisions contained under Section 8 & 9 of the IB, Code, shows that on the occurrence of a default, the operational-",,,,
creditor is required to deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debt or copy of the invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the,,,,
default to the CD in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the CD after the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned,,,,
in Section 8(1) of IB, Code, within ten days of the receipts of the notice bring to the notice of the operational-creditor the existence of disputes or",,,,
show the documents that the payment of unpaid operational-debt has been made. Section 9 makes it clear that after the expiry of period of ten days,",,,,
from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment, if the operational-creditor does not receive payment from the CD or notice of",,,,
the dispute under Section 8(2) of the IB, Code, only in that case the operational-creditor may file an applications for initiate of the CIRP. If we shall",,,,
read these two provisions together then we find, before initiating a proceeding under Section 9, the operational-creditor is required to fulfil the",,,,
conditions mentioned under Section 8(1), if he has not sent the demand notice as required under Section 8(1) of the IB, Code, then he cannot invoke",,,,
the provision under Section 9, rather he can invoke the provision of Section 9 only, when CD fails to raise the existing of disputes or place the",,,,
document to show that unpaid operational-creditor has been paid within ten days of the receipt of the demand notice. Therefore on the basis of,,,,
aforesaid provision, we are of the view that Section 8 and 9 cast a duty upon the operational-creditor as well as CD to act as per Section 8 and if they",,,,
fail to fulfil the conditions of Section 8 and 9 then in that case neither the application filed by the operational-creditor is maintainable nor the plea of,,,,
existing of disputes or the payment of debt subsequently taken by the CDs can be taken into consideration.,,,,
48. At this juncture, we would like to refer the decisions upon which CD placed reliance.",,,,
49. We have gone through the decisions in which the CD placed reliance, and we find, in none of the judgments, Section 8 has been discussed,",,,,
therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that even if reply of the demand notice is not",,,,
given, the CD can raise the disputes when after filing of the application in response to the notice he appeared.",,,,
50. At this juncture, we would also like to refer the decision upon which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the operational-creditor placed",,,,
reliance, that is the decision reported in 2005 (2) SCC 271 in the case of Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of",,,,
the operational-creditor has submitted that effort should be made to give effect to each and every word uses by the legislature while interpreting statue,,,,
and on the basis of that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the operational-creditor has submitted that since in Section 8 & 9, it is specifically",,,,
mentioned that on the occurrence of a default, the operational-creditor deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational-debt and within ten days of the",,,,
receipt of the demand notice, the corporate-debtor bring to the notice of the operational-creditor existing of disputes or the payment of unpaid",,,,
operational-debt and only after the expiry of period of ten days, from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice demanding payment under Section",,,,
8(1), if the operational-creditor does not receive the notice of dispute under Section 8(2) only then he is required to file the application.",,,,
51. In the light of that submissions, we have gone through the decision upon which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the operational-creditor",,,,
placed reliance and we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 14 of the Judgment held it is equally well settled that in interpreting a statue, effort",,,,
should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the legislature. The courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part,,,,
thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statue should have effect. A construction which attributes redundancy to the,,,,
legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons such as obvious drafting errors.,,,,
52. In the light of that decision, when we shall consider the case in hand then we are of the considered view that since it is specifically mentioned in",,,,
Section 8(2) that within ten days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice, the corporate-debtor is required to bring to the notice of the",,,,
operational-creditor, the existence of dispute or the documents regarding the payment of debt, therefore, we have no option, but to hold that since the",,,,
corporate-debtor fails to give the reply of the demand notice and raised the disputes, hence after his appearance in response to the notice, he cannot",,,,
raise it by filing the reply to the application filed on behalf of the operational-creditor.,,,,
53. Now, coming to the other submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the corporate-debtor, who in course of arguments",,,,
submitted that by whatsapp message, there was a settlement of the accounts and in view of that nothing is due.",,,,
54. In the light of this submission, we have gone through the whatsapp message enclosed with the reply filed on behalf of the respondent. At this",,,,
stage, we would also like to refer the whatsapp message enclosed with the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, which are from page 39 to 41 and when",,,,
we shall read the text whatsapp message together then we find, there is no settlement agreement in between the parties regarding the settlement of",,,,
the outstanding dues, which the operational-creditor has claimed in the application, rather on the basis of that, it can be said that CD has admitted that",,,,
the amount, which the operational-creditor claim was due. The only question, which the corporate-debtor has raised, is that in terms of settlement, the",,,,
corporate-debtor is not liable to pay. In our considered view, in the absence of any settlement agreements arrived in between the parties in writing, we",,,,
are unable to hold that outstanding amount, which the operational-creditor claim is not due and there is no default of payment of that amount",,,,
particularly when we held that the corporate-debtor has failed to raise dispute after the receipt of the demand notice within the period prescribed,,,,
under the law. Therefore, we are also unable to accept the contention of the corporate-debtor that by annexing whatsapp communication between the",,,,
corporate-debtor and one Mr. Arun Somani, the corporate-debtor has established the existence of disputes.",,,,
55. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that there is no force in the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for",,,,
the corporate-debtor, since there is an existence of disputes, hence the present application is not maintainable rather for the reasons discussed above,",,,,
we are of the considered view that operational-creditor has succeeded to establish this fact that application filed by him. is complete. There is no,,,,
payment of unpaid operational-debt and no notice of dispute has been received by the operational-creditor or there is no record of the dispute in the,,,,
information utility.,,,,
56. Therefore, we think it proper to admit the application; accordingly we hereby admit the application.",,,,
57. A moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code is imposed forthwith in following terms:,,,,
(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.,,,,
(2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during,,,,
moratorium period.,,,,
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any,,,,
financial sector regulator.,,,,
(4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process.""",,,,
58. Since the operational-creditor has not proposed the name of the IRP, therefore, we appoint Mr. Anand Sonbhadra (Email -",,,,
sonbhadra65@gmail.com) from the list submitted by the IBBI and accordingly, Mr. Mr. Anand Sonbhadra is appointed as IRP. He shall take such",,,,
other and further steps as are required under the statute, more specifically in terms of Section 15, 17 and 18 of the Code and file his report within 30",,,,
days before this Bench.,,,,
59. The Operational Creditor is directed to deposit the fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- to meet the immediate expenses of the IRP within two weeks. The same",,,,
shall be fully accountable by the IRP and shall be reimbursed by the CoC, to the Operational Creditor to be recovered as CIR costs.",,,,
60. Registry is directed to communicate the order with the IRP as well both the parties.,,,,
