9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal in Santosh Wasant Rao Walokar [ 2020 (4) TMI 385 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ], as the instant IA was filed only on 06.01.2020 - there are no merit in the instant IA and accordingly the same is dismissed. Violation of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- The decisions of the Committee of Creditors passed with the required majority percentage as per the Code, are binding on all the stake holders, including the dissenting members of Committee of Creditors, if any. No member of the Committee of Creditors, after a resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors with the required majority percentage, on one ground or other, cannot challenge the said decisions of the Committee of Creditors. It is for the Adjudicating Authority to apply its judicious mind whether a particular plan submitted for its approval is in compliance of the provisions of the Code and the Regulations made thereunder - Application dismissed. Approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Applicants have not lent any money to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, they cannot be treated as the financial creditor of the corporate debtors. Though the claim of the applicant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that there is no necessity for us to go and examine the various contentions of all the parties with regard to the said issue. Further, for the same reason i.e. execution of the registered lease deed even prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, we need not go into the issue whether execution of the instant lease deed was a to be understood as a pre-condition for approval of the resolution plan, though the Plan stated otherwise. In this view of this matter, and for the aforesaid reasons and also in view of our observations at Paragraphs Nos.13(a) (i) and 18 of IA No.225/2020, there is no need to discuss the extensive arguments advanced and judgments relied on by both the sides, on the issues that whether the lease deed dated 28.01.2020, is valid or whether this Adjudicating Authority can compel the applicant to act in a particular manner in respect of the ACE Complex Land property on which it is claiming certain mortgage rights or whether granting of prayers in Section 9 of the Resolution Plan, along with Addendum, would prejudice the rights of the Applicant etc. - Application dismissed. - HON BLE MR. AJAY KUMAR VATSAVAYI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.42/2017, the Adjudicating Authority appointed Shri Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian as the Interim Resolution Professional. The public announcement was published on 29.07.2017 and Committee of Creditors (in short Committee of Creditors ) was constituted on 17.08.2017. The first Meeting of the Committee of Creditors was held on 22.08.2017 and Shri Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian, who is the Interim Resolution Professional, was appointed as the Resolution Professional on 22.08.2017. Two Registered Valuers were appointed on 01.08.2017 and 02.08.2017. Invitation for expression of interest was issued on 30.08.2017. Vide order dated 17.01.2018, passed in CA No.8 of 2018, the period of CIRP was extended by 90 days. The Committee of Creditors in its meeting held on 02.04.2018 approved the Resolution Plan of Liberty Housing Group (in short LHG ). In pursuance thereof, the Resolution Professional filed CA No.114/2018 under Section 30(6) and Section 31(1) of the Code for approval of the Resolution Plan of LHG before this Adjudicating Authority. On 25.07.2018, this Adjudicating Authority by a common order allowed CA No.114/2018 filed by the Resolution Professional seeking approval of the Resolution P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itors were directed to take a final call within two weeks thereafter. Vide order dated 13.11.2019 passed in IA No.168814 of 2019, the Hon ble Supreme Court while extending time by three weeks for taking decision by the Committee of Creditors, ordered that the consideration be confined to five offers, received within the time specified in advertisement inviting offers. The Hon ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.12.2019, recalled its earlier order dated 13.11.2019 and directed the Resolution Professional to invite fresh offers within 30 days of the order after due advertisement in accordance with the procedure and the Committee of Creditors to evaluate the plans within three weeks thereafter. The Committee of Creditors after evaluation of the Resolution Plans of four prospective Resolution Applicants declared DVI as the preferred/H1 bidder as per the evaluation criterion, subject to DVI s satisfactorily addressing the key commercial and legal issues as highlighted by the Committee of Creditors. Vide order dated 20.01.2020, the Hon ble Supreme Court granted additional two weeks time for concluding the voting on the Resolution Plan of DVI and adjourned the matter to 10.02.2020. Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant for withdrawal of the offer is hereby rejected and in case he indulges in such kind of practice, it will be treated as contempt of this Court in view of the various orders passed by this Court at his instance. The application is accordingly dismissed. As requested List I.A. No. 146604/2019 in the third week of July, 2020. IV. CA 293/2018 1. Kind Special Steels (India) Private Limited, an Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor filed this CA under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short the Code ) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (in short the Rules ) on 27.07.2018 seeking the following reliefs:- i.) direct the Resolution Professional to revise and ascertain the liquidation value payable to Kind Special Steels (India) Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with law and facts; ii.) direct the respondent to admit the claim filed by the applicant as submitted on 04.08.2017; iii.) pass any other order(s) as this Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit. 2. The applicant states that out of its total claim of ₹73,82,273/-, the Resolution Professional admitted the claim of ₹25,84,915/- and not admitted the claim for the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited (Supra), held as under:- 32. xxx xxx xxx (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) Whether those claims that are not dealt under the resolution plan can be held to be extinguished under the provisions of the I B Code? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essar Judgment has vividly dealt with this issue. A successful Resolution Applicant cannot suddenly be faced with undecided claims after the Resolution Plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to an extra amount coming up for payment after the debts have been dealt by the Resolution Applicant and the Resolution Plan has been approved. This would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective Resolution Applicant who successfully takes over the business of the Corporate Debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the Resolution Professional so that a prospective Resolution Applicant knows exactly who has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, claims that are not submitted or are not accepted or dealt with by the Resolution Professional and such Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited (Supra) and the Hon ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Santosh Wasantrao Walokar (Supra) and also in view of the peculiar facts of the present case. 10. In the circumstances and in view of the above discussion CA No.293 of 2018, is dismissed. V. IA No.7/2020 1. M/s Neha Associates filed the IA No.7/2020 under Section 60(5) of the Code, on 06.01.2020, seeking the following reliefs:- i.) Allow the present application of the Applicant; ii.) Direct the respondent to inform the status of the aforesaid claim of ₹54.57 lakh of the Applicant against the Corporate Debtor and in case the same has yet not been admitted, direct the Respondent to admit the claims of the Applicant after verifying the veracity of the claims; iii.) Condone the delay in filing of the claims of the Applicant; iv.) Pass such other order/directions as this Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant states that in respect of its transactions with the Corporate Debtor, it has availed the vendor financing facility on 25.03.2014 with IDBI Bank, inter alia, for financing sales of stocks/machines/equip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore from the final payment to be made to applicant as per the scheme of distribution of amount under Resolution Plan; and 3. Direct the Respondent Resolution Professional to further include amounts of ₹ 6,22,58,072.64 towards LC payments and ₹ 61,39,000/- towards Bank Guarantee (BG) payments in the total admitted claim of applicant; or 4. To pass such other order or relief be granted as this Hon ble Tribunal deems fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the present application. 2. The applicant through this IA is seeking modification of the resolution plan which was admitted by the Committee of Creditors with the required percentage, wherein the applicant was also a member, though it has dissented with the said approval. 3. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was initiated at the instance of the applicant in the instant IA. Further, the applicant in its capacity as a financial creditor also was made as one of the Member of the Committee of Creditors. The Committee of Creditors in which the applicant is one of the Member approved the resolution plan of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Deccan Value I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions of the Committee of Creditors. It is for the Adjudicating Authority to apply its judicious mind whether a particular plan submitted for its approval is in compliance of the provisions of the Code and the Regulations made thereunder. The applicant even in its rejoinder, to the reply filed by the Resolution Professional, has not denied the fact of deliberations and acceptance of the action of the Resolution Professional for deducting the amount of ₹34 Crores and for distribution of amount payable to the applicant under the Resolution Plan of DVI, by the Committee of Creditors, wherein the applicant is a member. 8. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the IA and accordingly, the same is dismissed. VII. IA No.62/2020 1. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited (formerly, IL FS Trust Company Ltd.), KKR India Financial Services Private Limited and L T Finance Limited (formerly, L T Fincorp Limited), jointly filed this IA against the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor- M/s Amtek Auto Ltd. under Section 60(5) of the Code, on 11.02.2020, seeking the following reliefs:- (a) Direct the Resolution Profess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trust Company Limited (now known as Vistra ITCL (India) Limited), over 16,82,06,100 equity shares of face value of ₹2/- each of JMT Auto Limited, held by the Corporate Debtor. Following a subdivision of the shares of JMT Auto Limited (the record date for which was 22.09.2016), the number of pledged shares was altered to 33,64,12,200 equity shares of face value of ₹1/- each of JMT Auto Limited, held by the Corporate Debtor. 5. Placing reliance on the above referred agreements, Applicant No.1 submits that in its capacity as the secured trustee for and acting on behalf of Applicant No.2 and 3, is a secured financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor and therefore, the applicant No.1 is entitled to be included as a member of the Committee of Creditors and to be allowed to participate in the process of negotiating with the Prospective Resolution Applicants in order to preserve and secure its rights over the pledged shares. 6. It is also stated that on 02.11.2017, Applicant No.1 for and on behalf of Applicant Nos.2 3, filed its claim as a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor, claiming a principal amount of ₹500 Crores. The same was not admitted by the Resol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofessional submitted that the instant application suffers from delay and laches and cause disruption to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor, which is progressing under the directions and supervision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. He further stated that the claim of the Applicants to treat them as a secured financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor and its request for inclusion as the member of the Committee of Creditors, was admittedly rejected in the year 2017 itself and the applicant having not raised any grievance for all these years, cannot be permitted to challenge the said action or to make the same prayer, once again, belatedly at this stage. The Resolution Professional further submitted that admittedly, the applicants have not lent any money directly to the Corporate Debtor and that the Corporate Debtor has not owed any financial debt to the applicant other than executing the pledge of shares and hence, the applicant cannot be treated as a financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor in terms of the provisions of the Code. It is also stated that creation of pledge of shares by the Corporate Debtor cannot be termed as guarantee or indemnity. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of dues arising under any law for the time being in force such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owned, guarantors and other stakeholders in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor; b. Pass directions for grant of reliefs as sought under Section 9, Part V by the Successful Resolution Applicant in the Final Resolution Plan dated 17.01.2020 together with DVI Plan Addendum dated 07.02.2020 if deemed appropriate; c. Pass such other order/orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Having heard the learned counsels for the Resolution Professional, learned counsel for the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Applicant, we find that it would be first necessary to ascertain whether the requirements of the Code and Regulations made thereunder, have been complied with or not. 3. According to the Scheme of the Code, a Resolution Applicant is required to submit a resolution plan through the RP prepared on the basis of information memorandum. The information memorandum is a document envisaged under Section 29 of the Code and it is required to contain such relevant information as may be specified by IBBI. Accordingly, in Regulation 36 of the CIRP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust be satisfied that the resolution plan conforms to the requirements provided in Section 30(2) of the Code and also has provisions for its effective implementation. 5. Keeping in view the above referred mandatory requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code, and the peculiar facts of this case and the various orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6707/2019, we examine the resolution plan dated 17.01.2020 along with its addendum dated 07.02.2020 of the DVI and as approved by the Committee of Creditors. 6. The Resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors must provide for payment of insolvency resolution process cost in a manner specified by the Board in priority to the payment of other debts of the corporate debtor. With the present application i.e. IA No.225/2020, the RP has placed on record a copy of the Committee of Creditors approved resolution plan dated 17.01.2020 along with its addendum dated 07.02.2020 of the resolution applicant- Deccan Value Investors LP and DVI PE (Mauritius) Limited, filed vide Spl. Diary No.107A dated 15.06.2020. In Part 4- Financial Proposal, the resolution applicant has identified the specific sources of funds that woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uires that the resolution plan does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force. In Form H filed as Annexure P-1 to the additional affidavit filed vide Spl. Diary No.181 dated 25.06.2020 submitted by the RP as per the requirement of Regulation 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations, he has certified that the resolution plan did not contravene any of the provision of the law for the time being in force and is in compliance with the provisions of the Code and the CIRP Regulations. 11. The resolution applicants confirmed that they are not disqualified under Section 29A of the Code to submit a resolution plan or under any other law applicable which further shows that the resolution plan conforms to the provisions of the law for the time being in force and did not contravene any such provision. The RP in the Form H referred above, has certified the same. 12. The Resolution Plan should conform to all such requirements which may be specified by the IBBI. A statement to this effect has been made by the RP in the Form H referred above. 13. However, before we record our satisfaction to the resolution plan, it is necessary to examine some of the issues, which were cropp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is owned by Gateway Impex Private Limited, was leased to the corporate debtor under 4 unregistered lease deeds, all dated 16.03.2016 and were expired on 31.03.2019 i.e. during the period of CIRP. The resolution plan was submitted by the DVI to the Committee of Creditors on 17.01.2020. Gateway Impex Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the ACE Complex Land executed a registered lease deed on 28.01.2020 in favour of the corporate debtor for a period of 20 years, with effect from 01.04.2019. The resolution applicant issued the addendum to the resolution plan on 07.02.2020. The Committee of Creditors approved the resolution plan dated 17.01.2020 read with addendum dated 07.02.2020 on 07.02.2020. Therefore, though Clause 2.5.2 of the Resolution Plan read with addendum makes it contingent on the execution of a long term lease (subsisting for 20 years or more) for the ACE complex land with applicable terms and the definition of Acceptable Terms requires the prior written consent of a third party namely, Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. acting as a security trustee on behalf of KKR India Financial Services Limited and L T Finance Limited, the said requirement becomes infructuous as Gateway Impex Privat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority under Section 31(1) of the Code. He further submitted that in view of the time limit of 15 days fixed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in its order dated 08.06.2020 and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Adjudicating Authority may not reject/return the plan on the ground of non-issuance of LOI and non-payment of balance performance bank guarantee. (b) (iii) The learned counsel for the Committee of Creditors while drawing our attention to Step VI of RFRP, submits that Committee of Creditors has filed IA No.48906/2020 in Civil Appeal No.6707/2019, before the Hon ble Supreme Court, seeking approval of resolution plan on account of the special process having been undertaken under the inherent powers of the Hon ble Supreme Court and since the Hon ble Supreme Court relegated the matter i.e. matter of considering approval of the resolution plan to this Tribunal and directed to dispose it of within 15 days, the issuance of the LOI and the underlying purpose thereto in terms of the RFRP became nugatory and was no more required to be followed prior to the filing of the application for approval of the plan. (b) (iv) With regard to the submission of the Performance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittee of Creditors on the ground of non-issuance of LOI by Committee of Creditors and non-furnishing of the full Performance Bank Guarantee by the Resolution Applicant, we direct the Resolution Applicant not to insist for LOI and to submit the balance Performance Bank Guarantee within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. With regard to the compliance of the second proviso to Section 31(4) i.e. obtaining the approval of the Competition Commission of India, the Resolution Professional in Form H stated that as the process was being conducted under strict timelines, prescribed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, approval of the Competition Commission of India was not obtained by the Resolution Applicant before the approval of the Plan by the Committee of Creditors and the same would be required to be obtained by the Resolution Applicant in the manner as may be directed by the Adjudicating Authority. 15. With regard to the compliance under Regulation 35A, it is stated that CA No.297/2018 filed under Section 43 and 45 of the Code and IA No.67/2020, filed under Section 19 of the Code, are pending before this Adjudicating Authority and the same to be continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to whom statutory dues are owned, guarantors and the other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. b. The Resolution Applicant shall furnish the balance Performance Bank Guarantee within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. c. The Resolution Applicant shall submit the application seeking approval of the Competition Commission of India within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall be considered in accordance with the law. d. The moratorium order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 14 shall cease to have effect. e. The RP shall forward all records relating to the CIRP and the resolution plan to IBBI to be recorded at its database in terms of Section 31(3)(b) of the Code. f. Accordingly, CA No.225/2020, is disposed of. IX. IA No.237/2020 1. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited (formerly IL FS Trust Company Ltd.) filed the IA against the Resolution Professional (Respondent No.1), Committee of Creditors (Respondent No.2), Resolution Applicant/Deccan Value Investors (Respondent No.3) and Gateway Impex Private Limited (Respondent No.4), under Section 60(5) of the Code, on 22.06.2020, seeking the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all encumbrances. Further a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was issued to Gateway i.e. the mortgagor and the borrowers on 21.01.2020 i.e. before the execution of the lease deed dated 28.01.2020 by Gateway in favour of the corporate debtor. It is also stated that the new lease deed entered by the Resolution Professional is contrary to the applicable laws and lies in the teeth of Section 65A(3) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence, a new lease deed which is illegal in its very conception and execution is liable to be set aside and declared as non-est. 4. It is stated that an aggregate amount of ₹ 500 Crores was disbursed by the KKR and L T to WLD Investments Private Limited (in short WLD ) and BRASSCO Engineering Private Limited (in short BRASSCO ), which were thereafter utilized to extend inter-corporate loan to the corporate debtor, pursuant to three facility agreements dated 28.12.2015, 28.03.2016 and 30.06.2016. Towards the purpose of securing the short term loan obtained under the Facility Agreement dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure A-2), certain securities were provided inter alia, by Respondent No.4- Gateway. As per the facility agreement, Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Plan dated 17.01.2020 read with addendum dated 07.02.2020, reads as under:- Changes in 2.5 on Timeline of Events for Implementation of Resolution Plan: Sub-section 2.5.2 shall stand replaced in the clause set out below:- unless waived (where permissible under Applicable Law) by the Resolution Applicants, the consumption and completion (including the Acquisition of the Corporate Debtor by the Resolution Applicants in terms of sub-section 5.1 and disbursement of Upfront Cash Infusion for settlement of dues of the Corporate Debtor (Acquisition as a Going Concern) of this Resolution Plan and any other action set out in sub-section 5.1 and 5.2 (Acquisition as a Going Concern) of the Resolution Plan is are contingement on the following conditions having been fulfilled in a form and manner satisfactory to the Resolution Applicants ( Effective Date Conditions Precedent ): (d) Occurrence of Final NCLT Approval Date; (e) Receipt of a copy of the order of the relevant adjudicating authority NCLT approving this Resolution Plan; and (f) Execution of a long term lease (subsisting for 20 years or more) for the ACE Complex Land and Acceptable Terms. The definition of the relevant terms mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith or without such modifications as may be considered necessary by the Resolution Applicants in the Resolution Plan. It is clarified that any prayers requested to be granted by the NCLT to the Resolution Applicants shall not be construed as conditionalities to the implementation of this Resolution Plan: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (xii) To pass an order for cancellation and release of pledge over the JMT Shares and relieve the Corporate Debtor of all financial liabilities in respect of the pledge pursuant to this Resolution Plan; (xiii) To pass an order that this Resolution Plan shall be binding in terms of the Code on Vistra ITCL (India) Limited, KKR India Financial Services Limited and L T Finance Limited and that no action will be against the Corporate Debtor and / or Resolution Applicants, for any action undertaken in terms of the Resolution Plan, in relation to any financing arrangements between Vistra ITCL (India) Limited, KKR India Financial Services Limited, L T Finance Limited and the Corporate Debtor; (xiv) To note that the use of the ACE Complex Land (which is presently mortgaged to Vistra ITCL (India) Limited as a trustee for KKR India Financial Services Limited and L T Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned senior counsel for the applicant while fairly submitting that this adjudicating authority while exercising its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code cannot decide the validity of the registered lease deed dated 28.01.2020 executed by respondent No.4 Gateway in favour of the corporate debtor, however, submits that the respondents under the guise of seeking approval for the resolution plan by making the execution of lease deed for 20 years as a pre-condition for approval of the plan, also seeking approval for the said illegal and non-est lease deed from this adjudicating authority and thereby all the rights of the applicant to challenge the said illegal lease deed, would be foreclosed. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the resolution professional submits that execution of the lease deed in respect of ACE Complex land for 20 years in favour of the corporate debtor and the prior written consent by the applicant for the said lease deed, are not conditions precedent for approval of the plan and on the other hand, are the conditions for implementation of the plan and hence, there is no impediment in approving the resolution plan of DVI by this adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edent . The requirement of confirmation of the validity and subsistence of the lease arrangement by way of prior written consent of Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. acting as a security trustee on behalf of KKR India Financial Service Limited and L T Finance Limited in a form and substance acceptable to the resolution applicants and other requirements mentioned under the definition Acceptable Terms becomes redundant and infructuous since Gateway has already executed registered lease deed for 20 years even without the prior written consent from the Applicant and even before the Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan. Since, all the counsels are ad-idem that this adjudicating authority while exercising its jurisdiction under the provisions of Code, cannot decide the validity of a lease deed, we are of the considered view that there is no necessity for us to go and examine the various contentions of all the parties with regard to the said issue. Further, for the same reason i.e. execution of the registered lease deed even prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, we need not go into the issue whether execution of the instant lease deed was a to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
