Allowed

In the matter of Ogd Services Limited Cp (Ib) No.17-MB-IV-2019

NCLT9 Feb 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment admits a Section 7 petition filed by Punjab National Bank against OGD Services Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The court holds that the default is established via an SBLC invocation and an admitted One Time Settlement proposal, ordering the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

What did the court decide?

Petition admitted; CIRP initiated; Moratorium declared under Section 14; IRP appointed.

In the matter of Ogd Services Limited Cp (Ib)… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | NCLT (2023)

¶1

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶2

CP (IB) No.17/MB-IV/2019

¶3

Under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016

¶4

In the matter of:

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

…Financial Creditor/Petitioner

¶7

V/s

¶8

OGD Services Limited

¶9

[CIN: U93090MH2006PLC163779]

¶10

...Corporate Debtor/Respondent

¶11

Order pronounced on : 09.02.2023

¶12

Coram:

¶13

Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey Mr. Kishore Vemulapalli Hon’ble Member (Technical) Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

¶14

Appearances (via videoconferencing):

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mahima Shah, Advocate i/b Intralegal For the Respondent(s) : Mr.V.R. Dhoond, Advocates.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Per: Kishore Vemulapalli, Member (Judicial)

¶18

This is a Company Petition being C.P. (IB) No. 17/NCLT/MB/CIV/2019 filed by Punjab National Bank, the Financial Creditor/Applicant, under section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,

¶19

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶20

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶21

2016 (I&B Code) against OGD Services India Limited formerly known as Essar Oilfield Services India Limited, Corporate Debtor, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

¶22

The Petition is filed claiming an amount of Rs.253,50,07,485/- (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty-Three Crores, Fifty Lakhs, Seven Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty-Five only) as on 05.12.2018 inclusive of interest. The computation of claim amount is reproduced hereunder: -

¶23

AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE FROM WHICH SUCH AMOUNT FELL DUE

¶24

Facility	Limit Sanctioned (Rs Crore)	Ledger Balance as on 05.12.2018	Unapplied interest from 30.09.2016 (date of NPA) to 05.12.2018	De-recognized Interest From 30.09.2016 (date of NPA) 05.12.2018	Total dues as 05.12.2018
Stand by letter of credit	b 159,86,00,000/-	156,71,19,544/-	12,26,56,244/-	84,52,31,697/-	253,50,07,485/-

¶25

The date of Default is 30.09.2016 (date of NPA). The petition is filed on 03.01.2019.

¶26

The case of the Financial Creditor is as under:

¶27

a) The Corporate Debtor “OGD Services Limited” formerly known as “Essar Oilfield Services India Limited” is a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing on-shore and off-shore drilling services to domestic and international E&P Companies. It owns and operates a fleet of 15 Land Rigs of varying capacities from 250 HP to 2000 HP.

¶28

b) The Corporate Debtor had entered into a RIG Building Contract with ABG Shipyard Ltd. (ABG) vide contract No. EOSL/BG/JU 2000A01 dated 21 October 2008 for the construction of two F&G JU2000A

¶29

Page 2 of 18

¶30

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶31

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶32

Design Jack-Up Mobile Off Shore Drilling Rigs with Builder’s Hull Nos. Y-308 and Y-309 (the Jack-Up Rigs/Rigs).

¶33

c) The Financial Creditor submits that the Corporate Debtor approached them for grant/sanction of Stand by Letter of Credit (herein after referred as “ SBLC ” ) facility. The Financial Creditor considered the request of the Corporate Debtor and granted/sanctioned SBLC facility to the extent of Rs.US$ 27 Million equivalent to Rs. 159,86,00,000/- on 28.03.2014, which shall be utilized for securing/guaranteeing the Foreign Currency Facilities to be availed by the Foreign Currency Borrowers from the beneficiary for the purpose of construction/acquisition of jackrup rigs. Further, the SBLC was also sanctioned to Corporate Debtor to raise funds in the books of their associate sister concern companies Varada Drilling One Pte. Limited and Varada Drilling Two Pte. Ltd. towards construction/acquisition of the Rigs from ABG Shipyard Limited.

¶34

d) To secure the SBLC facility, the Corporate Debtor executed various loan and security documents on 29.03.2014 and as per SBLC facility the tenure of loan is of 12 months. The Corporate Debtor have agreed to repay the SBLC with interest @3% p.a. thereon and penal interest 2% for delay in payment. As per the SBLC agreement dated 29.03.2014, it was agreed in the event if the SBLC facility is invoked by the Foreign Currency Lenders and a demand is made y the Foreign Currency Lenders under the SBLC then the Financial Creditor shall call upon the Corporate Debtor to pay the loan amount and interest thereon. The charge was also created with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, on 14.07.2014.

¶35

Page 3 of 18

¶36

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶37

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶38

e) The Financial Creditor also submits that vide invocation letter dated 04.05.2016, Bank of India, New York Branch being the beneficiary invoked the SBLC of Financial Creditor. Accordingly, the Financial Creditor made the payment of the demanded amount of Rs. 167,03,78,256/- by debiting the account of Corporate Debtor.

¶39

f) Pursuant to invocation of SBLC, the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the credit facility and the debit/due overdue amounts created in the loan account and executed a Fresh Deed of Hypothecation on 13.07.2016 in favour of Financial Creditor.

¶40

g) The Financial Creditor further submits that the Corporate Debtor on 07.03.2018 admitted its liability. The Corporate Debtor by letter dated 17.04.2018 addressed to all the lenders proposed for One Time Settlement.

¶41

h) The Financial Creditor submits that, Corporate Debtor availed and enjoyed the SBLC facility but failed to repay the dues as a result of which the loan account of the Corporate Debtor has been classified as Non-Performing Assets. The Financial Creditor issued Recall Notice dated 18.05.2018 to the Corporate Debtor thereby recalling for outstanding dues within a period of seven dues from the date of recall notice. Despite receipt of said recall notice, the Corporate Debtor neither replied in rebuttal nor repay the outstanding dues.

¶42

Reply/Written Submissions by the Corporate Debtor

¶43

The Corporate Debtor filed reply thereby oppose for admission of the Petition and also submit that the alleged that the Petition is not maintainable because it does not demonstrate any claim, debt and

¶44

Page 4 of 18

¶45

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶46

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶47

default and also the Petition is devoid of merits, therefore, the Petition is ought to be rejected on following grounds: -

¶48

a. the petition fails to demonstrate any claim against the alleged Corporate Debtor;

¶49

b. the steps taken by the Financial Creditor are in violation of RBI norms and/or illegal;

¶50

c. SBLC Agreement under which the Financial Creditor made a claim is void and thus enforceable;

¶51

The Corporate Debtor submits that the documents produced by the Financial Creditor indicate that the claim is based on two SBLCs issued by it to secure foreign currency loans granted by Bank of India, New York Branch (BOI) allegedly in pursuance of the SBLC Facility Agreement. Loans were granted to two Singapore based entities Varada Drilling One Pte. Ltd. and Varada Drilling Two Pte. Ltd. and these foreign currency loans were used to repay the Term Loan.

¶52

The Reserve Bank of India issued a Circular dated 22.04.2014 issued by to all scheduled and commercials Banks precluding them from extending non-fund credit facilities such as SBLCs to subsidiaries of their Borrowers, for the purposes of availing foreign currency loans for repayment of Rupee Loans. Apart from the aforesaid circular, the RBI expressed an opinion vide its letter dated 15.05.2014, issued to co-lenders of the Financial Creditor, in the context of the Rupee Term Loan granted to the Respondent, confirming the position. It is also pertinent to note that the two SBLCs in question were issued on 30^th September 2014, i.e. after the issuance of the RBI circular and the RBI letter addressed to Punjab & Sindh Bank, a co-lender of the purported Financial Creditor in the present transaction. Thus, the Financial Creditor consideration for executing the SBLC Agreement now being invoked by it, i.e. repayment

¶53

Page 5 of 18

¶54

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶55

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶56

of its Rupee Term Loan become illegal and/or unlawful and has the effect of defeating the provisions of law.

¶57

Such situation is contemplated under Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, which is reproduced hereinunder: -

¶58

“ 23. What consideration and objects are lawful, and what not.

¶59

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless " it is forbidden by law; 14 or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.

¶60

In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.”

¶61

The Corporate Debtor also relied on Jehal Tanti & Ors. Vs. Nageshwar Singh , reported at [AIR 2013 SC 2235], wherein it was held that in every case, where the consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful is void.

¶62

“13. We may also notice Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which lays down that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or if of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of

¶63

Page 6 of 18

¶64

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶65

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶66

any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful and every agreement executed with such an object or consideration which is unlawful is void. Since the sale deed was executed in favour of Respondent No.1 in the teeth of the order of injunction passed by the trial court, the same appears to be unlawful.”

¶67

The object/purpose of the SBLC Agreement become impossible. The Corporate Debtor submits that object/purpose of First Sanction Letter and the SBLC Agreement was to finance VD1PL and VD2PL to acquire the two jack-up RIGS from ABG which is evident from the documents annexed with the Petition. This inference is buttressed by the Corporate Debtor letter dated 07.03.2018, which states that the Financial Creditor did in fact issue the SBLCs in question to Bank of India to finance acquisition of the said Jack-up-rigs from ABG by VD1PL to VD2PL. It is submitted that the very object/purpose of the issuance of the SBLCs by the Financial Creditor has become impossible as on date i.e. after the said SBLCs were issued and thus there is a legal and factual supervening impossibility and/or frustration. They further submit that such situation is contemplated and governed under section 56 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 56 of the Contract Act, interalia provides that a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, becomes void when the act is impossible. It also provided that where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with reasonable diligence might have known, and which the promisee did not know to be impossible or unlawful, such a promisor must make compensation to

¶68

Page 7 of 18

¶69

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶70

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶71

such promisee for any loss which such promise sustains through the nonperformance.

¶72

The Application fails to demonstrate any Debt/Default

¶73

It is evident from the aforesaid that the sole Foreign Currency Lender and/or Beneficiary of the SBLC Agreement was IDBI Bank Limited. Further, there is no mention of Bank of India, New York, in either the first sanction letter or the SBLC Agreement.

¶74

The First Sanction Letter indicated that the purpose of the SBLC facility was to secure a Foreign Currency facility to be raised by the Corporate Debtor overseas associate concerns. It is further contemplated that IDBI Bank Limited would be the FC lender i.e. the Bank granting the FC facility. This is evident from the following portion of said Sanction Letter:

¶75

*Purpose of* *SBLC Facility*	SBLC of $27 Mio (Restricted to Rs.159.86 Crores to be secure the FC Facility to be raised by ovserseas associate concerns of the Company for the purpose of construction/ acquisition of jackup rigs through novationfrom EOISL.
Security	a) The Facility, together with interest, interest, further interest, liquidated damages, commission on BG, costs, expenses and all other monies whatsoever shall be secured on paripassu basis with IDBI as FC Lender on reciprocal basis by first charge in a form satisfactory to existing participating lenders/security agent

¶76

The Corporate Debtor also submits that only the IDBI Bank limited was entitled to invoke the SBLCs and make demands for payment from the Financial Creditor in pursuance of thereof. Thus, if the Financial Creditor had been called upon to pay any moneys under the SBLCs by

¶77

Page 8 of 18

¶78

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶79

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶80

IDBI Bank Limited, then and only the, could it have claimed reimbursement from the Corporate Debtor. Until such reimbursement, such claim would have been deemed to be a demand loan. Therefore, it is clear from such examination that no entity other than IDBI Bank Limited, could have triggered the Financial Creditor obligations and consequently the Respondent’s obligations, under the SBLC Agreement.

¶81

The Financial Creditor has enclosed two letters in made under the SBLC agreement. These letters are the purported “Letter of Invocation” dated 01.04.2016 and a purported “Recall Notice” dated 18.05.2018. Both these letters showed that the Financial Creditor issued SBLCs to BOI not IDBI. The issuance of SBLCs to BOI by the Financial Creditor, the subsequent payments made by it to BOI on the basis of which the invocation of such SBLCs and the consequent claims for reimbursement made on the Corporate Debtor are completely outside the ambit of the SBLC Agreement. The Corporate Debtor also submits that in the documents filed by the Financial Creditor, it has not only failed to deny the contention of the Corporate Debtor but also failed to produce any documents under which the Financial Creditor made payments to BOI, New York.

¶82

The Corporate Debtor also states it is also important to examine whether the claim sought to be projected in the present Application is a “financial debt” as contemplated by Section 5(8) of the Code. The Financial Creditor only intended to charge a commission on the SBLCs to be issued under the said agreement. Further, the SBLC does not carry any time value for money. Therefore, the issuance of SBLC by the Financial Creditor do not appear to create “financial debt” as contemplated in Section 5(8) of IBC. Hence, there is no default as contemplated under Section 2 (12) of Code.

¶83

Page 9 of 18

¶84

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶85

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶86

Rejoinder/Written Submissions by the Financial Creditor

¶87

The main issue raised by the Corporate Debtor is that there is nothing on record to make the Corporate Debtor liable for the claim of Rs.159.86 Crores consequent to the payment made by the Financial Creditor under the SBLC to Bank of India (New York) since in the SBLC Facility Agreement at Schedule V in the List of Foreign Currency Lender (FCL), the name of IDBI Bank Ltd, Dubai is shown whereas in the referred case it is Bank of India, New York Branch who is the FCL. The Corporate Debtor wants to take advantage of this fact to absolve from the liability.

¶88

SBLC’s are documentary credit whose rules and regulations are as per Uniform Customs and Practice for Commercial Documentary Credit (UCP 600). The said UCP is revised time to time. The last UCP revised is called UCP 600. Article 37(d) of Uniform Customs and Practice for Commercial Documentary Credit (UCP 600) specifically says that the applicant is bound and liable to indemnify the issuing bank. Accordingly, once payment is made under the SBLC, the applicant is bound to pay the issuer. There is no requirement of any other document to substantiate the liability of the Corporate Debtor. Assuming no SBLC Agreement is executed, the liability of the Corporate Debtor subsists as UCP is binding in India and enforceable.

¶89

Admittedly in in the Schedule of SBLC facility agreement, the LIST OF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY LENDERS only IDBI Bank Ltd was mentioned. The fact remains that the SBLC Facility Agreement the name of the foreign currency lender was open ended and not limited to IDBI Bank. SBLC Facility Agreement itself defines Foreign Currency Lender:

¶90

Page 10 of 18

¶91

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶92

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶93

The same shows that at the time of execution of the said agreement the foreign currency lender was not identified hence the name of IDBI Bank in the foreign currency lender shall not vitiate the SBLC and the liability of the corporate lender. The said agreement specifies that the Corporate Debtor shall be liable to indemnify at Para 4.3 of the Agreement which is as follows:

¶94

“4.3: Payment by the obligator to the Lender under the Facility

¶95

(ii) If the lender is called upon to pay all or any of the monies in pursuance of the facility such amount shall be reimbursed by the Obligator to the Lender immediately upon the demand by the Lender and until such reimbursement by the obligator, the same shall be deemed to be a demand loan. If the obligator fails to pay any amount payable by it under this Agreement, such amount shall be an Unreimbursed drawing under the Facility.

¶96

The obligation of the obligator to indemnify and pay/ reimburse the Lender with respect to the Outstanding shall be absolute, unconditional and irrevocable, and such Outstanding shall be paid/reimbursed strictly in accordance with the terms of this agreement, under any and all circumstances and irrespective of any setoff, counterclaim or defence to payment which the Obligator may have or have had against the Lender or any of its Affiliates.”

¶97

The Financial Creditor submits that, in response to the Recall Notice dated 18.05.2018, there has been no denial by Corporate Debtor of their liability. The only instance they have challenged their liability is in reply to Company Petition. The same only proves that their defence is a ruse for non-payment. Further, like any other documentary credit SBLC is an

¶98

Page 11 of 18

¶99

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶100

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶101

unconditional promise to the beneficiary that in case of default, payment shall be made by the issuing bank. Precisely for the said reason SBLC is an independent contract and not bound by the underline contract. The issuing bank therefore has no other option but to make payment on invocation. The only instance wherein the SBLC can be challenged is in the event of fraud since fraud vitiates all contracts and SBLC is no exception. Whereas there is no allegation of fraud made by CD.

¶102

The financial Creditor further submits with respect to the issue of RBI norms violation, the fact remains that the sanction of SBLC is subject to the corporate debtor obtaining approval letter from RBI. This is clear from the Sanction Letter. Therefore, it is clear that SBLC was issued after obtaining permission from RBI. Notwithstanding any non-compliance of the RBI norms is not a defence for non-repayment of the debt.

¶103

It is pertinent to note that by letter dated 07.03.2018, the Corporate Debtor has admitted that due to the continuous default by VD1PL and VD2PL, the said SBLC were invoked by BOI and accordingly, the Financial Creditors, UBI, PNB, SBH and Financial Creditor herein discharged their liability to BOI as per the terms of the SBLC.

¶104

The Financial Creditor relied on Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. Vs. Haier Telecom (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. which highlighting the fact that SBLC is independent and not bound by the underlying contract.

¶105

Findings:

¶106

We have heard and prudently gone through the pleadings available on record. On the request of the Corporate Debtor, the Financial Creditor sanctioned SBLC Loan to the extent of Rs. 159.86 Crores in favour of the Corporate Debtor. To secure the facility, the Corporate Debtor

¶107

Page 12 of 18

¶108

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶109

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶110

executed SBLC facility Agreement dated 29.03.2014, The Corporate Debtor enjoyed the facility but failed to liquidate the dues. The Financial Creditor issued recall notice dated 18.05.2018 recalling for outstanding dues. Despite recall notice, the Corporate Debtor neither replied nor repaid the dues.

¶111

The Corporate Debtor submits that as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter the Financial Creditor does not hold authority to initiate the proceedings under Section 7 of the Code. Being the first charge holder, the IDBI Bank Limited holds right to initiate proceedings under IBC.

¶112

Security	a) The Facility, together with interest, interest, further interest, liquidated damages, commission on BG, costs, expenses and all other monies whatsoever shall be secured on paripassu basis with IDBI as FC Lender on reciprocal basis by first charge in a form satisfactory to existing participating lenders/security agent

¶113

The Ld. Counsel for the Corporate convened in his arguments that this is a fit case for applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidharbha Industries Power Limited Vs Axis Bank Limited.

¶114

76. The fact that Legislature used ‘may’ in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, ‘shall’ in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in the two provisions are intended to convey a different meaning. It is apparent that Legislature intended Section 9(5)(a) of the IBC to be mandatory and Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to be discretionary. An application of an

¶115

Page 13 of 18

¶116

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶117

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶118

Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) of the IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor.

¶119

Further, on perusal of the SBLC Agreement dated 29.03.2014 and amended SBLC Agreement dated 23.09.2014 executed by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Financial Creditor, this Bench also noted that Corporate Debtor unconditionally and irrevocably agreed/undertook for repayment of outstanding dues in the event of default. The relevant extract of the Agreement is reproduced hereinunder: -

¶120

“(ii)If the Lender is called upon to pay all or any of the monies in pursuance of the Facility, such amount shall be reimbursed by the obligor to the lender immediately upon demand by the Lender and until such reimbursement by the obligor, the same shall be demand loan. If the Obligor fails to pay an amount payable by it under this Agreement, such amount shall be an Unreimbursed Drawing under the facility”

¶121

This Bench observes that the Corporate Debtor approached the Financial Creditor for sanction of SBLC facility and the same was disbursed in the name of Corporate Debtor which is evident from the materials available

¶122

Page 14 of 18

¶123

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶124

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶125

on record. Further, the Corporate Debtor also issued an OTS proposal to all the lenders on 17.04.2018 in which the Corporate Debtor acknowledged and admitted the due amount is payable by them to the Financial Creditor. The relevant extract of the OTS is reproduced hereinunder: -

¶126

9.“The Company proposes a One Time Settlement (OTS) at 20% on the outstanding Principal amount owed to all the Lenders i.e. 482 Crores and the OTS amount to be paid to all the Lenders being Rs.96 Crore. 10% of the OTS amount shall be paid upon acceptance of the offer and balance 90% shall be paid within 12 months. Bank wise outstanding amount and corresponding settlement amount are shown in the annexure.”

¶127

By virtue of the aforesaid OTS proposal, this Bench is of the view that the Corporate Debtor accepted the liability as well as default and there is no reason to deny for admission of this Company petition. Thus, this is a fit case for admission.

¶128

The Petition is complete and has been filed under the proper form. The debt amount is more than Rupees One Crore and default of the Corporate Debtor has been established.

¶129

The Financial Creditor has proposed the name of Mr. Vikas Prakash Gupta, a registered insolvency resolution professional having Registration Number [IBBI/IPA-007/IP-P00501/2017-2018/10889] as Interim Resolution Professional, to carry out the functions as mentioned under I&B Code and has also given his declaration that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.

¶130

Page 15 of 18

¶131

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶132

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶133

ORDER

¶134

This Application being C.P. (IB) No. 17/NCLT/MB/C-IV/2019 filed by Punjab National Bank, the Financial Creditor/Applicant, under section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) against OGD Services Limited, Corporate Debtor, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is admitted . We further declare moratorium u/s 14 of I&B Code with consequential directions as mentioned below:

¶135

I. That this Bench as a result of this prohibits:

¶136

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;

¶137

b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

¶138

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;

¶139

d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in possession of the corporate debtor.

¶140

II. That the supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period.

¶141

Page 16 of 18

¶142

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶143

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶144

III. That the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of I&B Code shall not apply to

¶145

a) such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator;

¶146

b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a Corporate Debtor.

¶147

IV. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of I&B Code or passes an order for the liquidation of the corporate debtor under section 33 of I&B Code, as the case may be.

¶148

V. That the public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of I&B Code.

¶149

VI. That this Bench appoints Mr. Vikas Prakash Gupta, a registered insolvency resolution professional having Registration Number [IBBI/IPA-007/IP-P00501/2017-2018/10889], Phone No. as Interim Resolution Professional to carry out the functions as mentioned under I&B Code, the fee payable to IRP/RP shall comply with the IBBI Regulations/Circulars/Directions issued in this regard.

¶150

VII. The Financial Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) with the IRP to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. These expenses are subject to approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

¶151

Page 17 of 18

¶152

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH-IV

¶153

CP (IB) No. 17/MB-IV/2019

¶154

VIII. A copy of this Order be sent to the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, for updating the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor.

¶155

IX. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to the Financial Creditor, the Corporate Debtor and the Interim Resolution Professional even by way of email or WhatsApp. Compliance report of the order by Designated Registrar is to be submitted today.

¶156

Sd/- Sd/- Manoj Kumar Dubey Kishore Vemulapalli Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

¶157

09.02.2023

¶158

/NP/

¶159

Page 18 of 18

In the matter of Ogd Services Limited Cp (Ib) No.17-MB-IV-2019

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In the matter of Ogd Services Limited Cp (Ib) No.17-MB-IV-2019

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases