Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5899 of 2021
M/S. JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES … Appellant(s)
Versus
D.K. MOHANTY & ANR. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5904 of 2021
O R D E R
1. By way of these appeals under Section 62 of Insolvency and
1
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appellant, said to be an operational creditor
of the respondent No. 2 company, seeks to question the common order
dated 17.08.2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate
2
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Company Appeal (AT)
(Insolvency) No. 888/2020 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
889/2020, whereby the Appellate Tribunal, after holding that the
operational debt claimed by the appellant was not free from pre-existing
dispute, set aside the orders dated 30.09.2020 passed by the National
Signature Not Verified
3
Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in admitting the
Digitally signed by
Neelam Gulati
Date: 2021.10.27
11:36:54 IST
Reason:
1 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘IBC’ or ‘the Code’.
2 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘NCLAT’ or ‘the Appellate Tribunal’.
3 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘NCLT’ or ‘the Tribunal’.
1
application made by the appellant for initiation of Corporate Insolvency
4
Resolution Process concerning the respondent No. 2 company.
2. Having regard to the questions sought to be raised, elaboration on
all the factual aspects pertaining to the claim of the appellant and the
dispute raised by the respondents is not necessary. Only a brief reference
to the relevant background would suffice.
3. The appellant M/s. Jai Balaji Industries is engaged in the business
of manufacturing and supply of iron and steel products, having its plants
5
in the States of West Bengal and Chhattisgarh. The respondent No. 2
Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited is a company engaged in
6
the business of selling iron ore, having its mines in the State of Orissa.
The respondent No. 1 is the Managing Director of this company.
3.1. The appellant and the respondents entered into two
7
Memorandums of Understanding on 13.08.2003 and 11.03.2004,
whereby the respondent No. 2 agreed to supply, respectively, 1 lakh and
7 lakh metric tons of iron ore per month to the appellant. A dispute ensued
between the parties, as regards the requisite supply and payment,
leading the appellant to invoke the arbitration clause and the matter was
taken up in arbitration proceedings.
4. Two separate arbitral awards dated 22.02.2010 and 15.02.2010
were passed in relation to the respective MOUs in favour of the appellant
whereunder the respondent company was held liable to make payment of
Rs. 4.44 crores and Rs. 2.79 crores respectively.
‘CIRP’ for short.
4
5 The appellant is also referred hereinafter as ‘the operational creditor’, as per the context.
6 The respondent No. 2 company is also referred hereinafter as ‘the respondent company’ or ‘the
corporate debtor’, as per the context.
7 ‘MOU’ for short.
2
4.1. The respondent company challenged the legality and validity of
the awards so made by way of petitions under Section 34 of the
8
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. These petitions were, however,
9
dismissed by the District Court, Barasat by its orders dated 27.02.2012
10
and 29.02.2012 respectively. These orders were challenged by the
11
respondent company by way of two appeals under Section 37 of the Act
of 1996 before the High Court of Calcutta on 07.08.2012. The appeals
remained pending for long but, on 22.11.2019, the same were dismissed
in default because of non-appearance of the appellant therein (i.e., the
respondent company).
4.2. On 17.12.2019, the respondent company moved respective
12
applications for restoration of appeals; and these applications were
allowed by the High Court on 02.03.2020, after finding sufficient cause for
non-appearance on the date of hearing. Consequently, both the appeals
under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 stood revived and are said to be
pending yet.
5. In the meantime and before such restoration of appeals, the
appellant sent two separate demand notices under Section 8 of the Code
[read with Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Application to
Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016] to the respondent company on
14.02.2020, claiming operational debts to the tune of Rs. 7,75,13,684/-
8 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’.
9 In Miscellaneous Case No. 159 of 2010 pertaining to MOU dated 13.08.2003.
10 In Miscellaneous Case No. 173 of 2010 pertaining to MOU dated 11.03.2004.
Being FMA 941 of 2012 pertaining to MOU dated 13.08.2003 and FMA 939 of 2012
11
pertaining to MOU dated 11.03.2004.
12 Being CAN No. 12338 of 2019 in FMA 941 of 2012 and CAN No. 12333 of 2019 in FMA 939 of
2012.
3
and Rs. 5,62,01,258/- under the respective arbitral awards, for the
appeals having been dismissed by the High Court.
5.1. In terms of Section 8(2)(a) of the Code, the respondent company
sent its replies to the demand notices on 25.02.2020, asserting, inter alia ,
that there existed a dispute and the matter was pending in arbitration
proceedings, which pre-dated the receipt of demand notice.
Substantiating this assertion, the respondent company stated that the
applications for restoration of appeals were pending in the High Court,
which were filed much before the receipt of demand notices and with
advance notice to the appellant. Thus, the respondent company asserted,
within 10 days of service of the demand notices, that the matter of debt
owed was sub judice and no operational debt was payable to the
appellant.
6. Notwithstanding the replies so sent by the respondent company,
the appellant proceeded to move the National Company Law Tribunal,
Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process against the respondent company for non-payment of
the aforementioned operational debts and filed two applications under
13
Section 9 of the Code. It would be apposite to indicate at this stage itself
that NCLAT took note of the fact that such applications, though sworn on
29.02.2020, were filed only on 02.03.2020; however, NCLT had
proceeded on the assumption that the applications were filed on
29.02.2020. As would be noticed hereafter later, the date of filing of such
applications under Section 9 of the Code has its own bearing in the
13 Being CP (IB) No. 676/KB/2020 and CP (IB) No. 688/KB/2020 respectively.
4
matter because the aforesaid appeals of the respondent company under
Section 37 of the Act of 1996 were restored by the High Court on
02.03.2020.
7. The Adjudicating Authority, i.e., NCLT, dealt with the applications
so made by the appellant under Section 9 of the Code by its common
order dated 30.09.2020; and proceeded to examine the question as to
whether the appeals under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 were pending on
the day the operational debt owed to the appellant became due.
7.1. The NCLT took the view that on the day the appellant served
demand notices to the respondent company under Section 8 of the Code
and on the date of filing of applications under Section 9 of the Code, no
proceedings were pending in challenge to the arbitral awards and hence,
no dispute as to the debt owed to the appellant was existing on the
relevant dates. The NCLT further observed that although the High Court
allowed the applications for restoration of appeals under Section 37 of the
Act of 1996, this was belatedly done, only on 02.03.2020. The relevant
observations of NCLT could be usefully extracted as under: -
“7…..On 14.02.2020, the Operational Creditor sent Corporate
Debtor notice under Section 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016. It was received by the Corporate Debtor on 18/2/2020 and
Corporate Debtor replied vide letter dated 25.02.2020. This
application to initiate CIRP of the Corporate Debtor has been filed
by the Operational Creditor on 29.02.2020. On that day, no Appeal
under Section 37 of A & C Act, 1996 was pending because the
Hon'ble High Court restored the Appeal on 02.03.2020.”
7.2. The NCLT, thereafter, referred to the requirements of Section 9(5)
(ii)(d) of the Code and meaning of the expression “dispute” as per Section
5(6) of the Code, and observed as under: -
5
“8….From the plain reading of un-disputed facts in this
proceeding, it is clear that on the date on which the Corporate
Debtor was served with demand notice under Section 8 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or on the date on which
the application is filed against the Corporate Debtor, no arbitration
proceedings was pending challenging the award.”
7.3. The NCLT also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of
K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. : (2018) 17 SCC 662 and
observed that the enunciations therein rather operated in favour of the
operational creditor, because the operational debt became due and
payable when the award was confirmed by the District Judge; and even
though an appeal was filed by the corporate debtor, the same was
dismissed in default; and notice was given by the creditor only 90 days
after dismissal of the appeal. The NCLT even sensed mala fid e in the
corporate debtor’s application for restoration and observed that its officers
were using the proceedings in law either to delay or to avoid the
legitimate dues. The NCLT, inter alia, observed as under: -
“10. It has been held by the Apex Court that if it is shown that the
application under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996 is pending or
Appeal under Section 37 of the Act is pending, then insolvency
proceedings cannot be initiated. In this case, on the date of filing
of this application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 i.e on 29.02.2020, no proceeding under Section 34 or
Appeal under Section 37 of the Act was then pending against the
Operational Creditor (although restoration application of Appeal
was pending). So on the facts, we hold that above ruling is in
favour of the Operational Creditor rather than the Corporate
Debtor. In short, Operational debt become due and payable on
29.02.2012 i.e on the date of which the Learned District Judge
confirmed the award under Section 34 of A & C Act. The Corporate
Debtor filed Appeal under Section 37 of the Act. It was dismissed
in default. 90 days thereafter, on 14.02.2020, Operational Creditor
gave the Corporate Debtor notice under Section 9 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. On 28.02.2020 ( sic ).
6
11. What we gathered from the above facts is that the operational
creditor sent a demand notice three months after the Corporate
debtor’s appeal was dismissed by Hon’ble high Court. As soon as
the Corporate Debtor received the demand notice, its officers
swung into action and get the appeal restored. Meantime, the
operational creditor had filed this application. It appears from
record that the officers of the Corporate Debtor using the
proceedings under the law either to delay or to avoid the legitimate
dues of the Corporate Debtor on one or the other ground.”
7.4. In view of the above, the NCLT held that the corporate debtor had
committed default in payment of operational debts in spite of the receipt
of demand notice; and that there was no dispute pending, by way of
arbitral proceedings or otherwise, on the date on which default occurred
or the date on which application was filed to initiate CIRP of the corporate
debtor. With these observations, the NCLT admitted the applications
made by the appellant under Section 9 of the Code in its capacity as an
operational creditor; initiated CIRP in relation to the respondent company;
declared moratorium; appointed Interim Resolution Professional; and
issued further consequential directions.
8. Being aggrieved by the orders so passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (NCLT), the present respondents preferred respective appeals
before the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 61 of the Code
contending, inter alia , that the applications under Section 9 of the Code
were actually filed only on 02.03.2020 but, on that date, the appeals had
been restored by the High Court and such restoration related back to the
date of filing of appeals. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of
the appellant that on the date of issuance of the demand notice
7
(14.02.2020), no arbitration proceedings were pending as the appeals
were restored only on 02.03.2020 and, therefore, the Adjudicating
Authority had rightly admitted the applications for CIRP in the present
case.
8.1. The core of rival contentions came to be noticed by the Appellate
Tribunal in the following words: -
“6. Subsequently, the Application for restoration, filed on
17.12.2019 was restored on 02.03.2020. It is the case of the
‘Operational Creditor’ that ‘as on the date of the issuance of the
Demand Notice’ under Section 8 of the Code i.e. on 14.02.2020
there was no Arbitration proceeding pending, as the Appeal under
Section 37 was restored only on 02.03.2020. As against these
submissions, Learned Solicitor General representing the
‘Corporate Debtor’ submitted that once the Application for
restoration is allowed, it relates back to the original date of filing. It
is also submitted that the Section 9 Application was affirmed on
29.02.2020 but was actually filed on 02.03.2020 and therefore as
on the date of filing of the Application, the Appeal was already
restored.”
8.2. The NCLAT referred to the decision of this Court in the case of
Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. : (2018) 1
SCC 353 and, in keeping with the principles enunciated therein,
proceeded to examine as to whether there was a pre-existing dispute
concerning the debt in question on the date of receipt of demand notice.
Thereafter, NCLAT referred to the decision of this Court in the case of
Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors. : (2004) 6 SCC 378 , to
observe that as per the view of the majority therein, once an appeal is
restored to its original number, the interlocutory orders therein stand
revived unless otherwise directed. By applying these principles, the
8
NCLAT held that once the appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 was
restored, it related back to the original date of filing in the following words:
-
“9. What can be gleaned from the majority decision is that upon
restoration of Appeal to its original number, the Appellant is
restored to the position when the Court has initially dismissed the
Appeal for default, unless the Court expressly or by implication
excludes the operation of any Orders passed during the period
between the dismissal of the restoration.
10. The minority view relied upon by the Learned Counsel
appearing for ‘Operational Creditor’ is not applicable to this case.
The binding Judicial Precedent is the view taken by the majority.
That constitutes the Rule of the Court. Having regard to the
interpretation of the ratio laid down in the aforenoted Judgement
that once an Appeal is restored to its original number, the fact that
Interlocutory Orders would stand revived unless otherwise
directed, further strengthens the case of the Appellant herein. We
are of the considered view that the ratio of majority view of
‘Vareed Jacob’ (Supra) is applicable to the facts of this case
and hence, we hold that once an Appeal under Section 37 of the
A&C Act, 1996, is restored it relates back to the original date of
filing.”
8.3. A question regarding effect of pendency of the proceedings for
execution of award also cropped up, to which, the NCLAT observed that
the execution would come into picture if the appeals under Section 37
had been decided; and ‘money recovery’ and ‘triggering of insolvency’
were not parallel proceedings. The NCLAT also observed that, in fact, IBC
discourages recovery proceedings; and the practice of using this Code
towards execution of decree or money recovery is rather deprecated.
8.4. Moving on, the Appellate Tribunal referred to Section 8 of the
Code and observed that the requirement was to see as to whether there
existed a dispute or record of pendency of the suit or arbitration
9
proceedings; and with reference to the facts of the present case,
construed that a dispute was in existence prior to the issuance of demand
notices. It was also observed that the applications for restoration were
filed with advance notice to the operational creditor. Having said that, the
Appellate Tribunal referred to the enunciations of this Court in the case of
Mobilox Innovations and K. Kishan (supra) and held that it was a clear
case of a pre-existing dispute between the parties prior to the issuance of
demand notice and hence, the operational debt cannot be said to be an
undisputed one. The relevant part of observations and findings of the
Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in its impugned common order dated
17.08.2021 could be usefully extracted as under: -
“15. Section 8(2)(a) provides that Existence of a Dispute, [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. At the outset, what has to be seen is ‘whether
there is any Existence of Dispute’, ‘if any or’ record of the
pendency of the suit or Arbitration Proceedings. In the instant
case, it is an admitted fact by both the parties that disputes arose
way back in the year 2003 and 2004, and based on the terms of
MoU entered into, the ‘Operational Creditor’ themselves invoked
the Arbitration Proceedings. Both the Arbitral Awards were
assailed by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ under Section 34 of A&C Act,
1996 and were dismissed by separate Orders dated 27.02.2012
and 29.02.2012 respectively. The Appeals preferred by the
‘Corporate Debtor’ under Section 37 of A&C Act, 1996, stood
pending till 22.11.2019 on which date they were dismissed for
non-prosecution. So even if 22.11.2019 is taken as the date of
NPA as contended by the Learned Counsel for the ‘Operational
Creditor’, the fact remains that till that date there is an ongoing
Dispute. It can be safely construed that there was a ‘Dispute’ in
Existence prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice.
Subsequently, the Appeal under Section 37 was restored on
02.03.2020. The Application for restoration CAN No. 12333 of
2019 was filed by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ on 17.12.2019 with an
advance Notice to the ‘Operational Creditor’. Thereafter the
Demand Notice was issued on 14.02.2020. The Application was
10
filed on 02.03.2020. We have already observed that upon
restoration, the Appeal relates back to the original date of filing
and therefore we note that there was a Pre-Existing Dispute prior
to the date of issuance of the Demand Notice.
16. To view it in a narrow compass and interpret Section 8(2)
(a) that an Arbitral Award ought to be pending as on the exact
date of the issuance of the Demand Notice, amounts to
mistaking/misconstruing the said Section. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in ‘Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd.’ (Supra) has
clearly laid down that ‘the test for determination for the
Adjudicating Authority is to see at the stage of Admitting/rejecting
the Application is whether there is a plausible contention which
requires further investigation and that the ‘Dispute’ is not a
patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported
by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff
and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster’. It is
observed that the Adjudicating Authority does not need to be
satisfied whether the defence is likely to succeed so long as a
Dispute truly Exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or
illusory. In the instant case, the Existence of a ‘Dispute’ is
evident in the Arbitration Proceedings pending from 2004 till
29.11.2019…
17. The ratio in the aforenoted Judgement is squarely applicable
to the fact of the instant case as it can be seen from the record
that the entire basis for the Section 8 Notice is that the Appeals
preferred by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ under Section 37 of the A&C
Act, 1996 were dismissed for default on 22.11.2019…
18. There is a possibility that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ may succeed
on any claim or part of the claim. Hence, it is apposite to
observe that the ‘Operational Debt’ herein, could not be said to be
an ‘undisputed debt’. Following the ratio in ‘Mobilox Innovations
Pvt. Ltd.’ (Supra) wherein it was inter alia held that so long as a
dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, the Adjudicating
Authority ought to have dismissed the Application. Hence, for all
the aforenoted reasons these Appeals are allowed and the
Impugned Order is set aside. No Order as to costs.”
(emphasis in the original)
9. Seeking to question the aforesaid common order dated
17.08.2021, the appellant (operational creditor) has preferred these
appeals under Section 62 of the Code.
9.1. It is strenuously contended on behalf of the appellant that to
operate against maintainability of an application by the operational
11
creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Code, there ought to
be a dispute existing prior to the service of demand notice. It is submitted
that as per the plain language of Section 8(2)(a) of the Code, the dispute,
as defined in Section 5(6) of the Code, must strictly be existing as a
matter of fact on the date of service of demand notice, as explained and
laid down in Mobilox Innovations (supra). The contention is that any
later development in relation to the claim under the demand notice cannot
have a bearing on an adjudication of the application filed under Section 9
of the Code. While emphasising on the phraseology of Section 8(2)(a) of
the Code, it is contended that the provision specifically seeks to negate
and nullify the effect of any post-facto development with respect to the
default amount for which demand notice had been issued. It is submitted
that in the present case, subsequent restoration of appeal under Section
37 of the Act of 1996, post service of demand notice, cannot have any
bearing on the maintainability of the application filed under Section 9 of
the Code.
9.2. As regards the doctrine of ‘relation back’, it is contended that this
doctrine cannot be applied universally and, in any case, cannot be
applied in adjudication of an application filed under Section 9 of the Code.
It is also contended that NCLAT has wrongly relied upon the majority
judgment in the case of Vareed Jacob (supra), wherein it was held on the
facts of the case that the interim order was revived automatically upon
restoration of the suit; and has failed to appreciate the other observations
12
in the majority judgment itself, positing that all interim orders cannot be
put on the same pedestal. It is further submitted that the minority view in
Vareed Jacob (supra), dealing with the issue pertaining to the legal
treatment of rights accrued in the interregnum, i.e., between dismissal of
proceedings in default and restoration, could not have been ignored for
the reason that such an issue was not dealt with by the majority
judgment. Further, a decision of this Court in the case of Addagada
Raghavamma & Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma & Anr. : AIR 1964 SC
136 has also been referred, to submit that the doctrine of relation back
cannot be invoked without limitations, and retroactivity must not affect any
vested rights.
10. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant and having examined the record with reference to
the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that these appeals remain
totally bereft of substance and do not merit admission.
11. In comprehension of the relevant background aspects of the
present case, it is clear that the appellant asserts itself to be an
operational creditor, for the reason of having a claim against the
respondent company, which was the subject matter of arbitration
proceedings and led to the arbitral awards in its favour. According to the
appellant, challenge to arbitral awards came to an end with dismissal of
appeals filed under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 and hence, the notices
were sent demanding payment of the amount due, for which the
13
corporate debtor was in default; and any event occurring post issuance of
demand notices cannot have any bearing on adjudication of the
applications moved for initiation of CIRP.
12. We are impelled to observe at the outset that the entire approach
of the appellant seems to be founded on a basic misconception that the
Code has provided another avenue for enforcing money recovery by a
creditor against the corporate debtor; and the submissions on behalf of
the appellant, seeking to maintain its application under Section 9 of the
Code for initiation of CIRP against the respondent company, proceed
squarely contrary to the elementary principles concerning the object and
purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In the case of
Swiss Ribbons Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. : (2019)
4 SCC 17 , this Court has highlighted the fact that in its scheme and
framework, the Code is a beneficial legislation to put the corporate debtor
on its feet, and not a mere recovery legislation for the creditors. This
Court has observed, -
“ 28. It can thus be seen that the primary focus of the legislation is
to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by
protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and
from a corporate death by liquidation. The Code is thus a
beneficial legislation which puts the corporate debtor back on its
feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors. The
interests of the corporate debtor have, therefore, been bifurcated
and separated from that of its promoters/those who are in
management. Thus, the resolution process is not adversarial to
the corporate debtor but, in fact, protective of its interests…..”
(underlining supplied for emphasis)
14
12.1. Moreover, as we shall see in necessary details a little later, this
Court has consistently made it clear that an operational creditor cannot
use the Code for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt
enforcement procedures; and the object of the Code is to allow the
insolvency process against the corporate debtor to be taken up at the
instance of an operational creditor only in the clear case, where a real
dispute between the parties as to the alleged debt does not exist.
13. As regards legal principles applicable to the questions at hand, we
may usefully refer to the relevant provisions of law before adverting to the
decisions of this Court.
13.1. Part II of the Code deals with insolvency resolution and liquidation
of corporate persons and Chapter II thereof deals with Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process. The root provisions relating to insolvency
resolution by operational creditor are contained in Sections 8 and 9 of the
Code.
The inclusive definition of the expression “dispute”, for the
purpose of Part II, as contained in Section 5(6) of the Code, reads as
under: -
“5 (6). “dispute” includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating
to—
(a) the existence of the amount of debt;
(b) the quality of goods or service; or
(c) the breach of a representation or warranty;”
15
The relevant provisions concerning insolvency resolution by an
operational creditor, as contained in Sections 8 and 9 of the Code, read
as under: -
“8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor. – (1) 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-
14
(a) existence of a dispute, [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 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 payment of the operational debt in respect of
which the default has occurred.
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 sub-section (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.
14 The expression ‘if any, or” as now occurring in Section 8 (2) (a) of the Code was substituted by
Act 26 of 2018 w.r.e.f. 06.06.2018 for the earlier expression “if any, and”. However, even before
this amendment, this Court, in the case of Mobilox Innovations (supra) read down “and” as “or”,
keeping in mind the legislative intent behind this provision.
16
(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 by the corporate
debtor, if available;
(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 an
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 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 payment of the unpaid operational
debt;
17
(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.”
14. The entire scheme of the Code in relation to the insolvency
resolution by an operational creditor initially came up for exposition by this
Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations (supra), decided on 21.09.2017.
14.1. In that case, the appellant had sub-contracted certain work to the
respondent and entered into a non-disclosure agreement. The appellant
withheld certain payments against invoices raised by the respondent while
alleging that certain actions of the respondent were in breach of the non-
disclosure agreement. A demand notice was sent by the respondent under
Section 8 of the Code and in response thereto, the appellant maintained
that there existed serious and bona fide disputes and the notice was issued
as a pressure tactic. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application before
the Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the Code, stating that
operational debt was owed by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority
dismissed this application by holding that the claim of the operational
creditor was hit by Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code since the payment was
18
being disputed by the corporate debtor. However, the Appellate Tribunal
allowed the appeal preferred by the operational creditor and remitted the
matter to the Adjudicating Authority to consider admission of the application
if it was otherwise complete. The order so passed by the Appellate Tribunal
was challenged in appeal before this Court.
14.2. In the backdrop as aforesaid, this Court traversed through the
scheme of the Code and particularly, the provisions relating to insolvency
resolution by an operational creditor, including the history of making of such
provisions. Thereafter, this Court summarised the course of action by the
Adjudicating Authority on receiving an application under Section 9 of the
Code and the questions to be determined as follows: -
“ 34. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, when examining an
application under Section 9 of the Act will have to determine:
(i) Whether there is an "operational debt" as defined exceeding Rs
1 lakh? (See Section 4 of the Act)
(ii) Whether the documentary evidence furnished with the
application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and
has not yet been paid? and
(iii) Whether there is existence of a dispute between the parties or
the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed
before the receipt of the demand notice of the unpaid operational
debt in relation to such dispute?
If any one of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application
would have to be rejected...”
14.3. As indicated hereinbefore, at the relevant time of decision in
Mobilox Innovations , the expression occurring in Section 8(2)(a) of the
Code was “and”, which was required to be read as “or” looking to the
object of the Code and purpose of the provision. This reading down was
later on duly incorporated by the legislature by way of the necessary
19
amendment. This Court, while holding that “and” must be read as “or” to
prevent an anomalous situation, laid down that the objective of the Code
with regards to operational debts was to ensure that these debts did not
enable operational creditors to initiate insolvency resolution process
against the corporate debtors prematurely, since debts owed to
operational creditors were generally smaller than those owed to financial
creditors. Therefore, it was held by this Court that to stave off the initiation
of insolvency resolution process for extraneous consideration, it was
enough to be noticed that a dispute existed between the parties. This
Court said, -
“ 38 …We have also seen that one of the objects of the Code qua
operational debts is to ensure that the amount of such debts,
which is usually smaller than that of financial debts, does not
enable operational creditors to put the corporate debtor into the
insolvency resolution process prematurely or initiate the process
for extraneous considerations. It is for this reason that it is enough
that a dispute exists between the parties.”
14.4. This Court further held that the Adjudicating Authority was not
required to examine the merits of the dispute but it was supposed to
examine only prima facie if a dispute truly existed between the parties,
and that the same was not patently feeble or imaginary. If the answer to
the aforementioned was in the affirmative, the Adjudicating Authority was
required to reject the application. This Court, inter alia , held and laid down
as under: -
“ 51. It is clear, therefore, that once the operational creditor has
filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating
authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if
notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or
20
there is a record of dispute in the information utility. It is clear that
such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the
"existence" of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration
proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties.
Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage
is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further
investigation and that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal
argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is
important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a
spurious defence which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the
Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to
succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of
the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a
dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or
illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.”
(underlining supplied for emphasis)
14.5. This Court, thereafter, examined the facts of the case before it and
while setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal, said as follows: -
“ 56. Going by the aforesaid test of “existence of a dispute”, it is
clear that without going into the merits of the dispute, the appellant
has raised a plausible contention requiring further investigation
which is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of
facts unsupported by evidence. The defence is not spurious, mere
bluster, plainly frivolous or vexatious. A dispute does truly exist in
fact between the parties, which may or may not ultimately
succeed, and the Appellate Tribunal was wholly incorrect in
characterising the defence as vague, got up and motivated to
evade liability.”
15. The issue, as to whether the provisions of the Code could be
invoked in respect of operational debt where an arbitral award has been
passed against the operational debtor but which has not been finally
adjudicated upon, came up for fuller exposition in the case of K. Kishan
(supra), decided on 14.08.2018.
15.1. In that case, the disputes between the parties were referred to
arbitration; and the Arbitral Tribunal delivered its award on 21.01.2017,
inter alia , allowing certain claims in favour of the respondent but rejecting
21
three of its cross-claims. A notice dated 06.02.2017 under Section 8 of the
Code was sent by the respondent to the corporate debtor, demanding
payment which was replied by the corporate debtor on 16.02.2017,
disputing the demand since the amount was subject matter of pending
arbitration proceedings, while also asserting that as per their accounts,
rather, the respondent was to pay a larger amount to them. A petition
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 challenging the award was filed by
the corporate debtor on 20.04.2017. Thereafter, a petition under Section 9
of the Code was filed by the respondent on 14.07.2017. The Adjudicating
Authority, by its order dated 29.08.2017, admitted the petition on the
grounds that the amount was admitted by counsel for the respondent,
which rendered the factum of pendency of Section 34 petition irrelevant;
and that the award had not been stayed. These findings of the
Adjudicating Authority were affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal while
additionally holding that the non-obstante clause in Section 238 of the
Code would override the Act of 1996. Being aggrieved, the corporate
debtor preferred an appeal before this Court.
15.2. It was observed by this Court that one of the counterclaims was
rejected on merits and the same was pending adjudication in the petition
filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and hence, it could not be said
that no dispute existed between the parties. While iterating the
enunciations in Mobilox Innovations (supra) that the dispute must pre-
exist the date of receipt of demand notice, it was emphasised by this
22
Court that on its objectives, the Code was not a substitute of recovery
proceedings; and an operational debt in an arbitral award could not be
allowed to jeopardise a solvent company, which could state that the
award was being challenged. This Court further observed that mere
factum of challenge would be sufficient to state that the award was in
dispute, rendering it to be a case of a pre-existing ongoing dispute; and
that the object of the Code, insofar as operational creditors are
concerned, is to put the insolvency process against a corporate debtor
only in clear cases where a real dispute between the parties as to the
debt owed does not exist. This Court exposited in clear terms as follows: -
“ 22 …it becomes clear that operational creditors cannot use the
Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous
considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures.
The alarming result of an operational debt contained in an arbitral
award for a small amount of say, two lakhs of rupees, cannot
possibly jeopardize an otherwise solvent company worth several
crores of rupees. Such a company would be well within its rights to
state that it is challenging the arbitral award passed against it, and
the mere factum of challenge would be sufficient to state that it
disputes the award. Such a case would clearly come within para
38 of Mobilox Innovations , being a case of a pre-existing ongoing
dispute between the parties. The Code cannot be used in terrorem
to extract this sum of money of rupees two lakhs even though it
may not be finally payable as adjudication proceeding in respect
thereto are still pending. We repeat that the object of the Code, at
least insofar as operational creditors are concerned, is to put the
insolvency process against a corporate debtor only in clear cases
where a real dispute between the parties as to the debt owed does
not exist.”
(underlining supplied for emphasis)
15.3. While re-emphasising that in the scheme of IBC, as regards
operational debt, all that has to be seen is whether the debt could be said
to be disputed, this Court stated in no uncertain terms that challenge to
23
the arbitral award shows a pre-existing dispute, which continues at least
until final adjudicatory process has taken place in terms of Sections 34
and 37 of the Act of 1996. This Court also indicated two diverse
eventualities in regard to the challenge to the arbitral award and pointed
out as to when the insolvency process may be put into operation and
when it cannot be. We may profitably reproduce the relevant passages of
the decision in K. Kishan (supra) as follows: -
“ 27. We repeat with emphasis that under our Code, insofar as an
operational debt is concerned, all that has to be seen is whether
the said debt can be said to be disputed, and we have no doubt in
stating that the filing of a Section 34 petition against an arbitral
award shows that a pre-existing dispute which culminates at the
first stage of the proceedings in an award, continues even after the
award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34
and 37 has taken place.
28. We may hasten to add that there may be cases where a
Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award may clearly and
unequivocally be barred by limitation, in that it can be
demonstrated to the court that the period of 90 days plus the
discretionary period of 30 days has clearly expired, after which
either no petition under Section 34 has been filed or a belated
petition under Section 34 has been filed. It is only in such clear
cases that the insolvency process may then be put into operation.
29. We may hasten to add that there may also be other cases
where a Section 34 petition may have been instituted in the wrong
court, as a result of which the petitioner may claim the application
of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to get over the bar of limitation
laid down in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. In such cases
also, it is obvious that the insolvency process cannot be put into
operation without an adjudication on the applicability of Section 14
of the Limitation Act.”
(underlining supplied for emphasis)
16. We are clearly of the view that the aforesaid enunciations are
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As noticed, on the
date when the appellant chose to serve the notices under Section 8 of the
Code (i.e., on 14.02.2020), the arbitral awards in the present case had
24
not attained finality and rejection of petitions under Section 34 of the Act
of 1996 had been in challenge in appeals under Section 37 thereof. Even
if the said appeals were dismissed in default, the respondent company
had moved for restoration with advance notice to the appellant. It had not
been a clear case of the corporate debtor being in default with no pre-
existing dispute.
17. The appellant, however seeks to suggest that the appeals having
been dismissed in default and having not been restored as on the date of
notice, the law requiring pre-existing dispute is of no application. In that
regard, restoration of the appeals is sought to be termed by the appellant
as a ‘later development’ or a ‘ post-facto event’. The submissions are
neither in conformity with the relevant facts nor compatible with the law
applicable.
17.1. On the factual aspect, it remains rather indisputable that even if
the appeals were dismissed in default on 22.11.2019, the respondent
company indeed moved the applications for restoration on 17.12.2019
with advance notice to the appellant. Thus, on the date of issuance of the
notices (i.e., 14.02.2020), the appellant was aware of the fact that the
appeals under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 had not been decided on
merits and the applications for restoration had been moved within 30 days
of such default dismissal. It would be interesting to draw a parallel with
the illustration stated by this Court in the above quoted paragraph 29 of
K. Kishan (supra), that even if a Section 34 petition had been instituted in
25
a wrong Court and application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to
get over the bar of limitation was being pursued, the insolvency process
cannot be put into operation without an adjudication on the applicability of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The same analogy would apply, rather
with more emphasis and force, in relation to a default dismissal where
there had not been any adjudication on merits and where the prayer for
restoration is pending consideration. We have no hesitation in saying that
in such a case, without a final decision on the prayer for restoration, the
insolvency process at the instance of an operational creditor cannot be
put into operation.
18. For what has been discussed hereinabove, other aspects relating
to the principles that restoration would revive the proceeding to the
original status are not even required to be gone into, because the fact of
moving an application for restoration of appeal under Section 37 of the
Act of 1996 and bringing it to the notice of the operational creditor is, in
our view, sufficient to bring the matter within the four corners of “pre-
existing dispute”, so as to effectively negate any attempt by the
operational creditor to seek insolvency resolution. However, having
regard to the issues sought to be raised, we deem it appropriate to also
deal with the ancillary submissions of the appellant.
19. In order to counter the reasoning of NCLAT that restoration of
appeal relates back to the date of its filing, reference is made on behalf of
the appellant to a decision of this Court in Addagada Raghavamma
26
(supra). The question of applying the doctrine of relation back arose in the
said case in the wake of a question as to the date from which severance
in status would be deemed to have taken place in the event of declaration
by a member of Joint Hindu Family of his intention to live separate. The
Court found that there were two ingredients of such a declaration: one
being expression of intention and other being of bringing such expression
to the knowledge of the persons affected; and it was found that once the
knowledge was brought home (depending on the facts of each case), it
would relate back to the date when the intention was found and
expressed. However, this Court observed that between these two dates,
that is, of expression of intention and of bringing it to the knowledge of the
persons affected, several eventualities were possible whereby, vested
rights might be created in other persons; and if the doctrine of relation
back was invoked without any limitation, the vested rights so created
would be affected. In that context, this Court held that the doctrine should
not affect the vested rights and such a limitation was being placed to
meet with the given contingency.
19.1. It is difficult to find any application of the aforesaid enunciation to
the question at hand. It remains trite that when a suit or appeal is
dismissed in default and is restored after the Court is satisfied on the
cause shown for default, such restoration would revive the proceedings to
their status before default dismissal; and the doctrine of relation back
would come into play in the manner that the proceedings shall continue in
27
their original status, unless otherwise stated in the order of restoration or
coming out by necessary implication. The principles stated in Addagada
Raghavamma (supra) do not apply to the present case; and the
reference to this decision remains entirely inapposite for the present case.
20. Similarly, reliance on certain observations in the minority opinion
in the case of Vareed Jacob (supra), could only be disapproved as being
rather misdirected.
20.1. In that case, the relevant background aspects were that in a suit
for partition (Civil Suit No. 332/1122), the final decree was passed on
21.05.1964 whereunder, defendant No. 6 was granted recovery of certain
items. On 25.06.1969, the defendant No. 3 in the said suit filed another
suit, being Suit No. 209 of 1969, for setting aside the decree dated
21.05.1964. In the later suit, on 25.06.1969, the Court issued a temporary
injunction restraining the decree-holder from executing the decree dated
21.05.1964. On 02.04.1973, the said Suit No. 209 of 1969 was dismissed
in default. However, it was restored on 20.12.1974 and then, was
dismissed on merits on 21.03.1975. The appeals thereagainst were also
dismissed by the first Appellate Court and by the High Court. Then, on
18.03.1981, an execution petition was filed, seeking execution of the
decree dated 21.05.1964 in Suit No. 332/1122 wherein, the judgment-
debtor raised the objection of limitation with the submissions that the
execution petition was not filed within 12 years from the date of decree,
i.e., 21.05.1964. The Executing Court as also the High Court held that the
28
decree-holder was precluded from executing the decree during the period
25.06.1969 to 21.03.1975, i.e., the date when temporary injunction was
granted in Suit No. 209 of 1969 and until that suit was finally dismissed on
merits; and if that period was excluded, the execution petition was well
within time. The question that arose in appeal before a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court was as to whether there was an automatic revival of
interlocutory orders with the restoration of the suit.
20.2. In relation to the aforesaid question, the learned Judges forming
majority referred to several decisions to hold that the question, as to
whether restoration revives ancillary orders passed before dismissal of
the suit, would depend upon the terms in which order of dismissal is
passed and the terms in which the suit is restored. It was noticed that in
previous decisions, it had been held that interlocutory orders passed
before dismissal would stand revived along with the suit when dismissal is
set aside and the suit is restored, unless the Court expressly or by
implication excludes the operation of such interlocutory orders; or if there
was any alienation in favour of a third party during the interregnum
between dismissal and restoration. In the given case, the majority held
that in computing the period of limitation for execution of the decree, the
decree-holder was entitled to exclude the period between the date of
passing of an order of temporary injunction, that is, 25.06.1969 and final
date of dismissal of the suit, that is, 21.03.1975. On the other hand, the
learned Judge expressing minority opinion pointed out the distinction
29
between supplemental proceedings and incidental proceedings in the
scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and opined that a construction
preserving the rights of the parties pending adjudication must be allowed
to operate and an interlocutory order which loses its force by dismissal of
the suit may not revive on restoration, unless expressly directed.
20.3. Much emphasis is laid on behalf of the appellant on the
observations in the minority opinion as regards the issue pertaining to
legal treatment of the rights accrued in the interregnum. In our view, any
attempt to read the minority opinion as laying down independently a
distinct principle of law would not be a correct application of the law
governing precedents. The submissions are not correct factually either,
when we read the separate opinions holistically. The majority opinion is
clear and categorical where the principles stated in several decisions of
High Courts have been noticed with approval, while holding that the
decree-holder was entitled to exclude the entire period during which
temporary injunction was in operation; and it was obviously taken that
when a suit, which had been dismissed in default, stood restored, the
interlocutory order of temporary injunction was also restored because
nothing to the contrary was indicated in the order of default dismissal or
the order of restoration.
20.4. We need not elaborate that in the matters relating to divergence
of views in the Bench, it is the view of the majority that prevails and is to
be taken as laying down binding principles and declaration of law by this
30
Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is too far
stretched to contend, as attempted on behalf of the appellant, that any
observation occurring in the minority opinion as regards any question or
issue which has not been dealt with by the majority, may be read as
having force of law or persuasive value. The submissions are not correct
and deserve to be rejected.
21. We may also observe that the substance of the submission sought
to be based on the aforesaid decisions in Addagada Raghavamma and
Vareed Jacob is that vested rights are required to be protected. This
submission proceeds on a fundamental fallacy that on default dismissal of
the appeals filed by the respondent company under Section 37 of the Act
of 1996, some vested right was created in the appellant in its capacity as
an operational creditor. The real issue in the present case is about the
“pre-existing dispute” as regards the money sought to be claimed by the
operational creditor; and when pendency of the appeal is admittedly
answering to the description of pre-existing dispute, its default dismissal
could only be regarded as a partial eclipse, which momentarily puts the
dispute in hibernation. Of course, there could be a case where restoration
is not applied for and there could also be a case where restoration is
declined, which might put an effective end to the dispute but, when
restoration of the appeal is granted, it definitely re-activates the dispute.
In fact, for the purpose and in the scheme of the Code, even pendency of
31
an application for restoration is sufficient to bring the matter within the
four corners of “pre-existing dispute”.
22. We are further clearly of the view that the applications moved by
the appellant for initiation of CIRP were required to be rejected in terms of
Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code which mandates such rejection if a notice
of dispute had been received by the operational creditor or there is record
of dispute in the information utility. Both the features are present in this
case. The respondent company had unambiguously responded to the
notices sent by the appellant within 10 days with the assertions that the
applications for restoration of appeals were pending in the High Court,
which were filed much before the receipt of demand notices and with
advance notice to the appellant.
23. It is also significant to notice that as on the very day of filing of the
applications under Section 9 by the appellant, i.e., 02.03.2020, the
appeals were indeed restored by the High Court. The NCLAT took note of
the fact that the applications, though sworn on 29.02.2020, were filed only
on 02.03.2020. Thus, a wishful attempt of the appellant to use the default
dismissal of appeals for initiation of CIRP had also lost its ground on the
date of filing of the applications under Section 9 of the Code. The NCLT
had proceeded from an altogether wrong angle and even while passing
the order on 30.09.2020, did not pause to consider that the appeals stood
restored on the date of filing of the applications under Section 9 and
therefore, even the hyper-technical stance of the appellant was also
32
knocked out. The NCLT had, in fact, totally misconstrued the clear and
emphatic expositions in K. Kishan (supra).
24. For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, we are
satisfied that the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has rightly set aside the
orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and has rightly closed
the proceedings against the respondent company. There is absolutely no
reason to consider any interference at the instance of the appellant.
25. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are dismissed. All pending
applications also stand disposed of.
..………..………….…….J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
..………..………….…….J.
(VIKRAM NATH) 1
New Delhi,
Dated: October 01, 2021.
33
ITEM NO.4 + 5 Court 15 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5899/2021
M/S JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES Appellant(s)
VERSUS
D.K. MOHANTY & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No.121608/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.121610/2021-STAY APPLICATION.....[TO BE TAKEN UP
ALONG WITH C.A. No. 5904/2021] )
WITH
Civil Appeal No(s). 5904/2021
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.121667/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.121666/2021-EX-PARTE STAY )
Date : 01-10-2021 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
For Appellant(s) Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Karun Mehta, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Appeals are dismissed in terms of the Signed
Order.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Reportable Signed Order is placed on file)
34