Allowed

In the matter of Sankhya Infotech Limited I.A. No. 901 of 2021 Cp (Ib) No. 235-7-HDB-2020

NCLT15 Jun 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NCLT Hyderabad Bench approved the Resolution Plan and Scheme of Arrangement submitted by Mr. Prasanna Sai Raghuveer for M/s Sankhya Infotech Limited. The court held that the plan met the statutory requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC and Regulations 38 and 39, respecting the commercial wisdom of the majority Committee of Creditors.

What did the court decide?

The Resolution Plan along with addendum, annexures, and schedules was approved and declared binding on the Corporate Debtor and its stakeholders.

In the matter of Sankhya Infotech Limited I.A. No. 901… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | NCLT (2022)

¶1

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERBAD BENCH-1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

I.A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN

¶3

CP (IB) NO. 235/7/HDB/2020

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF

¶5

MR PUDHOTA MAHENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

VS. M/S SANKHYA INFOTECH LIMITED

¶7

Filed by

¶8

FREE OF CoST COPY

¶9

Mr Jagadees Kumar Morri, RP of M/s Sankhya Infotech Limited Regd. No. IBBI/IPA/001/IP-PO0398/2017-2018/10716 Address:10-5-7, Sri Sai Surya Complex, Sevasadan School, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam, Andhrapradesh-530013 [email protected]

¶10

Com pany La

¶11

srah:

¶12

Applicant Resolution Professional

¶13

Date of order: 15.06.2022

¶14

tyd rabadfDsÄ.Venkata Kti Veera BrahmaRamakrishna Rao Arekapudi, Badarinath, Hon'bleHon'bleMemberMember(Technical) (Judicial)

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

For Applicant: Shri S. Ravi, Senior Advocate assisted byy Ms. MS Mano Ranjani, Advocate

¶17

PER: BENCH

¶18

IA No. 91/2022 is filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 30(6) of 2016 r/w regulation 39(4) Insolvency^and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations,

¶19

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 1.A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (18) NO. 235/7/HD8/2020

¶20

2016 & Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking approval of resolution plan along with the scheme of Arrangement provided in the resolution plan of Mr. PRASANNA SAI RAGHUVEER (Resolution Applicant) as duly approved by^the Committee of Creditors.

C ompany
yde

To put concisely, the main petition filed by MR PUDHOTA MAHENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY u/s 7 of IBC, 2016 was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order Dated 28.07.2021 and ordered commencement of CIRP against M/s Sankhya Infotech Limited/ Corporate Debtor. The Applicant herein was appointed as Interimn Resolution Professional (IRP), who continued as Resolution Professional. In terms of Regulation 6 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board Resolution Process for of India (Insolvency Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, public announcement in Form-A was made by IRP on 04.08.2021 invitingg claims from the creditors of Corporate^Debtor.The IRP, after collating and verifying the same, admitted Claims from financial creditors and constituted Committee of of Creditors comprising following Financial Creditors.

¶25

SNo	Nameofthe Financial Creditor	Claim Admitted Rs.	Voting Share%
	IDBIBankLtd	333985824/-	92%
2	Mr PMahendra Kumar	,,, 2,59,37,825/-	7%

¶26

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 IA. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (1B) NO. 235/7/HDB/2020

¶27

Choudhary
3Mr JagadishPrasad Aluru	25,00,000/-	1%
Total	36,24,23,649/-	100%

¶28

The Form-G inviting Expression of Interest ("Eor} from Prospective Resolution Applicants for submission of Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was published on 11.10.2021 and the last date for submission of EOI was fixed as 26.10.2021. In response, the final list of the prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs), as released by the RP on 20.11.2021 are as under:

¶29

1. Mr Prasanna Sai Raghuveer 2) Mr Tadimalla Raj Kishore 3) M/s Shree Krishna Enterprises (P Venkateswara Reddy)

¶30

4) Mr P. Mahendrakumar Chowdary and Ms P Varalakshmi

¶31

Compan M/s Kundan Care Products Ltd 5)

¶32

La 6) Mr JV Tirupathi Rao & Ms Shaik Haseena

¶33

1. M/s Asphalt Roadworks Pvt Ltd & Ms K Ramalakshmi

¶34

bad encn encn 8) M/s Bommidala Enterprises Pvt Ltd

¶35

Iydere 9) M/s Cyfuture India Pvt Ltd 10) Mr Vivek Kumar

¶36

Compan La
bad encn encn

¶37

Mr Alok Mittal & Mr Vedant Mittal

¶38

M/s Sahasra Feeds^& Industry Company

¶39

Thereafter the Resolution Prolessional issued IM, EM and Request^for Resolution Plan(RFRP) in accordance with Regulation 36B(1) and the last date for submission of the

¶40

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 1A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (18) NO. 235/7/HDB/2020

¶41

¶42

Resolution Plan by the prospective Resolution Applicants was 10.12.2021. However, at the request of the prospective Resolution Applicants, the last date for receipt of the Resolution Plan was extended to 17.12.2021 and the RP received 4 Resolution plans along with EMD from the following Resolution Applicants as on 17.12.2021:

¶43

1. Mr Prasanna Sai Raghuveer 2) Mr and Ms P

¶44

P. Mahendrakumar Chowdary

¶45

Varalakshmi

¶46

Mr JV Tirupathi Rao & Ms Shaik Haseena 4) Mr Vivek Kumar (with M/s Lord's Mark Industries Pvt Ltd as

¶47

Co-applicant).

¶48

¶49

Compan Law

¶50

The Prospective Resolution Applicants were asked to improve^their plans a couple of times and the same were deliberated upon in the 8th meeting of COC dated 10.01.2022,^andwere ready to be put for e-voting, when he representative^of IDBI Bank Ltd apprised the CoC that approval from their competent authority before participating^inthe e-voting was required and hence, the e-voting was postponed till the internal approvals are taken by the IDBI Bank Ltd. The CoC after several rounds

¶51

of negotiations evaluated the Resolution Plan submitted by aforesaid resolution applicants as per the Evaluation Matrix and Section 29A of the Code. After evaluating in terms of both qualitative and quantitative criteria and

¶52

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 LA. No. 91 OF 2021 IN P (IB) NO. 235/7/HD8/2020

¶53

¶54

aggregate, the resolution plan was put for voting on the Claim Bridge on Technologies E-voting platform 24.01.2022 as per the resolution passed in the 9th meeting of Coc held on 17.01.2022. The Resolution Plan submitted by MR PRASANNA SAI RAGHUVEER (Resolution Applicant) was considered and approved by the CoC with 92% voting share in favour of it under Section 30(4) of IBC. The Applicant further submits that all the requirements envisaged under the Code and Rules/Regulations made there-under have been met. The e-voting result for the Resolution plan of Mr Prasanna Sai

¶55

Raghuveer is as under:-

¶56

of the Name FinancialCreditor IDBI BankLtd MrPMahendra af nyLan RmarChowdary MRAlluriJagadish Pasad Compan	Voting share (% 92% 7% 1%	Voted favor/ in against Favor Against Abstained

¶57

The Applicant averred that as per the RFRP, the Successful Resolution Applicant In lieu of Performance Bank Guarantee as required under sub regulation (4A) of Regulation 36(B) of BBI (Insolvency Resolution for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2021, has transferred an amount of Rs.1.5 Crores (30% of bid amount) on 24.01.2022 thru NEFT into Corporate Debtor's bank

¶58

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 1.A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (1B) NO. 235/7/HD8/2020

(A)

(B)

fafe
Gompan Law
äha 6

¶64

(C)

¶65

Branch.Account no. 0426103000000091, IDBI Bank, Ameerpet Contour of the Resolution Plan

¶66

the MR PRASANNA SAI RAGHUVEER KANDULA, Successtul Resolution Applicant (SRA) is a resident of # 2-29/3, First Floor, flat C, Hideaway Apartments, Street No 4, Habsiguda, Hyderabad Telangana 500007, who is specialized in Business Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Fin Tech, etc and currently serving as Managing Director of Bheema Cements Ltd, and the promoter of Fortuna Engi. Tech, ABI Datalabs, Munara Agro, Sahara Feeds, VNR Infrastructures and is on the board of several other companies.

¶67

The CoC comprised of the following financial creditors and the distribution of voting share among them is as under:-

¶68

Name of the FinancialCreditor IDBIBankLtd MrPMahendra KumarChowdary	Votingshare (%) 92% 7%	Voted in favor/ against Favor Against
MRAlluriJagadish Prasad	0%	Abstained

¶69

FINANCIAL PROPOSALS: The amount provided to the\ stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor is Rs.5.00 crores

¶70

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 1.A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (18) NO. 235/7/HD8/2020

¶71

¶72

which is tabulated below which shall be paid within 30 days from the effective date.

¶73

(Amount in Rs.)

¶74

||Sl.
No.|Category
of
Stakeholder
(2)|Sub-Categoryof
Stakeholder
||Amount
Claimed|Amount
Admitted|
Amount
Provided
the
under
Plan#|
Amoun
Provide
dtothe
Amoun
Claime
d%| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |Compan
fabad
y||
Secured
Pinancial
Creditors
Unsecured
Financial
Creditors

|3
(a)Creditors not
having a right to
voteunder sub
section
(2)
of
section21
(b)Other than
(a)above:
i) who did not
voteinfavour of
the
resolution
Plan
(ii)^whovoted in
favour
ofthe
resolution plan
Total (a)+(b)]
(aCreditorsnot
having aright to
voteunder sub-
section
of
(2)
section21
(b)
Other than
(a)above:
(i)whodidnot6
voteinfavour of
the
resolution
Plan
(ii)who votedin
favour
of
the
resolutionplan|
Nil

|33,39,85,824
33,39,85,824
Nil
,39,34,055|(5
Nil
33,39,85,824
33,39,85,824
Nil
2,84,37,825|(6)
Nil
440,00,000
Plus
2,00,000
equity
shares
of
the
Corporate
Debtor
of
INR
10
Each
460,00,000
Nil
2,84,378B
|()
L(7)_
Nil
13.77%
13.77%
Nil
0.44%|

¶75

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 IA. No. 91 OF 2021 IN

¶76

CP (18) NO. 235/7/HDB/2020

¶77

¶78

	Operational Creditors	Totall(a)+(b)] (a)Related Party Corporate of Debtor	6,39,34,055 Nil	2,84,37,825 Nil	2,84,378 Nil	0.44% Nil
		(b) Other than (a)above: (i)Government i)Workmen	93,17,420	26,64,920 0	26,649	0.29%
		(ii)Employees (iv) Operational creditors (other than Work1nen and Employees and Government Dues)	26,95,030 6,44,58,945	24,67,674 6,35,20,308	24,677 6,35,203	0.92% 0.99%
	Otherdebts anddues	Totall(a)+(b)]	7,64,71,395	6,86,52,9026	,86,529	0.9% O
Grand	Total		47,43,91,274	43,10,76,550	4,69,70,930	9.9%

¶79

The break-up of the resolution amount of Rs. 5.00 crores l fa brought in by the Resoution Applicant for various pany La rposes are detailed as under:

¶80

onch	Category of Creditor	No	Claims admitted Amountin Rs	Amount offered	%
2	CIRPCosts Secured financial creditors		333985824	3183770 46000000 (Including 2 lakhequity shares of Rs.10/ each)	100.00 13
3	Unsecured financial creditors OCs	3	44144876	441448	.77 1.00%
4	(Employees	+	2467674	24700	1.00%
5	OCs(Govt Dues)	2	2664920	26649	1.00%

¶81

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 .A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (I8) NO. 235/7/HDB/2020

¶82

9
OCs (others)
6 763520308 635203 1.00%
10.90
Total
16 446783602 50311771 %

¶83

(D) TERM OF THE PLAN

¶84

The term of the plan envisaged is one month from the date of approval of the Resolution the Plan by Adjudicating Authority.

¶85

(E) SHAREHOLDING PATTERN PRE/POST APPROVAL OF THE PLAN

¶86

Equity Shareholding Pattern of the Existing Shareholders post the CIRP:

¶87

S.NoCategoryof Shareholders Law pari Conp Hromotor and yderabco PromotorGroup bad Sench Public Shareholders	No. of SharesHeld Before CIRP 30,28,818 I,15,68,239	No. of SharesHeld after CIRP 578412	Voting Shares(%) heldbefore CIRP 20.75 79.25	Voting Shares (%) heldafter CIRP 0 .19
TOTAL	1,45,97,057	578412	100

¶88

(F) Management of the Corporate Debtor

¶89

For effective implementation and supervision, the plan provides a for Monitoring Committee comprising of representative of financial creditors a (COC), representative^ofResolution Applicant and Resolution Professional to oversee the activities of the Corporate

¶90

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 IA No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (IB) NO 235/7/H08/2020

¶91

¶92

Debtor and to take all necessary Corporate action required to implement the plan till the hand over date. The Plan further provides for managing the affairs of Corporate Debtor by reconstituting the Board and the Resolution Applicant shall be entitled to exercise sole and absolute control over the affairs of the Corporate Debtor in accordance with applicable law in terms ot Section 30(2) (d) of the Code. The new management team of the Company shall be constituted by the Resolution Applicant,ⁱⁿ accordance with the plan.

¶93

(G)

¶94

Compliance^of mandatory contents

¶95

of Resolution Plan under the Code and CIRP Regulations: The Applicant has conducted a thorough compliance check of the Resolution Plan in terms of the Code as well as Regulations 37, 38 & 39 of the Insolvency and Board of India Bankruptcy (Corporate Insolvency esolution Process) Regulations, 2016 (herein after feferred^toas Regulation) and has submitted his Form-H under Regulation 39 (4). It is submitted that Resolution Applicant^hasfiled an Aflidavit declaring that they are eligible to submit the plan under Section 29A of the Code and that the contents of the said affidavit are in order. The fair value and Liquidation value as submitted in Form-H is Rs. 10,66,930.00 and Rs. 9,87,515.50 respectively.

¶96

fafe R
Con mpany Lay
abad' encn
Hydera

¶97

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 1.A. No. 91 OF 2021 N CP (18) NO. 235/7/HDB/2020

¶98

¶99

The Resolution Applicants contemplate Corporat e Restructuring through merger/Acquisition of Gwebitsol Private Limited ("Transferor Company") with Sankhya allotment Infotech Limited ("Transferee/Resulting Conpany") and of shares of Corporate Debtor to the shareholders in such of the Transferor Company manner as prescribed in the Resolution Plan, as part of this Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor as per the terms and conditions as envisaged in the Resolution Plan; and the Scheme of Arrangement forming part of this plan.

¶100

¶101

In the above backdrop we heard Learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Ravi for the Resolution Professional. He submits TH A afa 7 that the Resolution Plan meets mpany the requirement of Law Section 30 (2) of the Code, as under:a)The^Plan provides for the priority payment of CIRP costs Pad Reno actuals and the same shall be paid in full and in yderab priority.^The CIRP cost till 13.05.2022 is reckoned as Rs.31,83,770/ -.

¶102

(b) The Plan provides for payment of 1% of the admitted claims of all operational creditors including workmen, of^* employees^& Government in priority to payment financial creditors, albeit the liquidation value of these creditors is NIL.

¶103

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 I.A. No. 91 OF 2021 N CP (18) NO. 235/7/HD8/2020

¶104

¶105

(c) The Plan provides for payment of debts to dissenting financial creditors, who did not vote in favour of the Resolution Plan, which shall not be less than the amount of liquidation value due to them in terms of Section 53 (1) of IBC.

¶106

11 The Resolution Plan is in compliance of Regulation 38 of the Regulations in the following manner:

¶107

(a) The amount due to the operational creditors under thhe resolution plan has been given priority in payment over financial creditors which is detailed at clause F-1 & G-2 and Clause-1 of the Resolution Plan.

¶108

(b)

¶109

(b) Declaration by that the the Resolution Applicant Resolution Plan has considered the interest of all the company Law takeholders of the Corporate Debtor, keeping in view th objectives^ofthe Code {Chapter-IV, Clause G of the R#solution Plan} (Regulation 38 (1A). onch rabaaDeclaration by the Resolution Applicant that neither the yder?

¶110

Resolution Applicant nor any of his related party has either failed or contributed to the faillure of the implementation^of any^other approved Resolution Plan [ Chapter VI, Clause 1(3) of the Resolution Plan ] (Regulation 38 (1 B). 12. It is further submitted that the Resolution Plan value of Rs. 5.0 crores is higher than the Liquidation value of Rs. 9,87,515.50 and the Resolution Plan has been

¶111

NCLT HYD BENCH 1 1.A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (18) NO. 235/7/HD8/2020

¶112

¶113

approved by the CoC in the 9th CoC meeting with 92% votes in favour of it. 13 in IA This Tribunal on 04.04.2022 vide order passed 523/2021 has approved the claim of Mr. Siva Kumar to the tune of Rs. directed the 1,57,07,051/-and Resolution Professional to consider his claim as perT rules. Pursuant to the said order, the Resolution Professional informed Mr. Siva Kumar that his claim has been admitted. The Resolution Professional informed that Bench that the SRA shall adjust this amount from the miscellaneous account without affecting the resolution plan as approved by the CoC.

¶114

In K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Others Company Law in^Civil Appeal No. 10673/2018) the Hon'ble Apex Eourt held that, "if the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan by requisite percent of voting share, then as per ection 30 (6) of the Code, it is imperative for the Craa ad Be Resolution Professional to submit the same to the Adjudicating Authority. On receipt of such proposal, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT)^is required to satisfy itselff that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the\ requirements specified in Section 30(2). No more and no less"

¶115

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 1.A. No. 91 OF 2021 N CP (1B) NO. 235/7/HOB/2020

¶116

¶117

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held at para 35 of the above judgement that the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan "as approved" by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference^to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements.

¶118

¶119

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar afa 3fa C o m p pany Gupta & Ors,^held that "the limited judicial review ayailable^toAA has to be within the four cormers of séction 30(2) of^the Code. Such review can in no Yderababad\BenchCircumstance trespass upon^a business decision of the majority of^theCoC.As such the Adjudicating Authority would not hae power to modify the Resolution Plan which the CoC in ther comnercial wisdom have approved".

¶120

¶121

The Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India, in the recent ruling in re Vallal RCK vs M/s Siva Industries and Holdings Limited & Ors, has held as under:

¶122

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 IA. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (18) NO 235/7/HD9/2020

¶123

¶124

This Court has consistently held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention for ensuring completion the of^the IBC. stated processes within the timelines prescribed by It has been held that there is an intrinsic assumption, that financial creditors are fiully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility of^the proposed resolution plan. They act on the basis of thorough examination of the proposed resolution plan and assessment made by their team of experts. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Others, Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory U. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others, Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Others, Kalpraj Dharamshi and Another v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited and Another, and Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Others v. NBCC (India) Limited and Others

¶125

This Court has, time and again, emphasized the need for minimal judicial interference by the NCLAT and NCLT in^the frameuwork of IBC. We may refer to the recent pbservation of^this Court made in the case of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited and Another: 95. ....However, we do take this opportunity to offer a note of caution for NCLT and NCLAT, functioning as the IBC adjudicatoryrespectively, authorityfrom^and judiciallyappellate authority under in the the interfering framework envisaged under the IBC. As we have noted earlier in the judyment, the IBC was introduced in order India. to overhaul As such, the it insolvency is and bankruptcy regime in a carefuly considered and welh thought^oul piece of legislation which sought to shed away^the practices of the past. The legislature has also

¶126

Co ompan
Yderaaied Sencn

¶127

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 IA. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (18) NO. 235/7/HD8/2020

¶128

¶129

been working hard to ensure that the efficacy of this legislation remains robust by constantly amending it based on its experience. Consequently, the need for Judicial intervention or innovation from NCLT and NCLAT should be kept at its bare minimum and should not disturb the foundational principles of the IBC.

¶130

18 Therefore, the resolution plan, when tested on the touch stone of the aforesaid facts and the rulings, we are of thee view that the instant resolution plan satisfies the requirements of Section 30 (2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations. We also found that the Resolution Applicant is eligible to submit the Resolution Plan under Section 29A of the Code.

¶131

¶132

We therefore, hereby approve the Resolution Plan along with addendum, annexure, schedules forming part of the Resolution Applicant annexed to the Application and order as under:

¶133

Compa Le

¶134

aThe Resolution Plan along with addendum, annexures anyi schedules forming part of the plan shall be binding Sh the Corporate Debtor, its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is due, guarantor_, and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan.

¶135

erah

¶136

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 I.A. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (1B) NO 235/7/HDB/2020

¶137

¶138

(ii) All crystallized liabilities and unclaimed liabilities of the Corporate Debtor as on the date of this order shall stand extinguished on the approval of this Resolution Plan.

¶139

(11) The approval of the Resolution Plan shall not be construed as waiver of any statutory obligations/

¶140

liabilities of the Corporate Debtor and shall be dealt with by the appropriate Authorities in accordance with law. Any waiver sought in the Resolution Plan, shall be subject^to approval by the Authorities concerned as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanashyamn Mishra And Sons Private Limited Versus Edeluweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited in CIVIL APPEAL NO.8129 OF 2019 dated 13.04.2021.

¶141

(iv) It is hereby ordered that Performance Bank Guarantee T rnished by the Resolution Applicant shall remain as a o n oandetormance^Bank Guarantee till the amount proposed to be paid to the creditors under this plan is fully paid arh^the plan^is fully implemented. B Memorandum^{ofAssociation} (MoA) and Articles of ydekddo Association (AoA) shall accordingly be amended and filed with the Registrar of Companies (RoC) Hyderabad for information and record. The Resolution Applicant, for effective implementation of the Plan, shall obtain all necessary approvals, under any law tor the time being in force, within such period as may be prescribed

¶142

NCLT HYD BENCH-1 IA. No. 91 OF 2021 IN CP (18) NO. 235/7/HDB/2020

¶143

¶144

(viii) Henceforth, no creditors of the erstwhile Corporate

¶145

Debtor can claim anything other than the liabilities

¶146

referred to supra.

¶147

ix) The moratorium under Section 14 of the Code shalI cease to have effect from this date.

¶148

(x). The Applicant shall forward all records relatig to the conduct of the CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the lBBI along^with copy of this order for information.

¶149