9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Ajay Gaggar and Mr. Shreedhar Gaggar, Advocates for SBI. JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. These Appeals have been filed by Ram Ratan Modi, Resolution Professional of Duncans Industries Ltd.- (Corporate Debtor) challenging various orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench in different IAs filed by the Resolution Professional in CP (IB) No.184/KB/2018. By the different IAs filed, the Resolution Professional has sought possession of various Tea Gardens claiming to be assets of the Corporate Debtor which applications by different orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority have been rejected. Aggrieved by those orders, these Appeals have been filed. 2. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.672 of 2021 has been filed by the Resolution Professional challenging the order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.1256/KB/2020 by which application the Resolution Professional prayed for direction to take possession of Hantapara, Garganda, Tulsipara and Dumchipara Tea Estates which application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 28.05.2021. 3. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.593 of 2022 has been filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Government, is required for the tea-garden, as the case may be. The State Government provided lease hold rights under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 as amended from time to time. In the present Appeals, Nine Tea Gardens which includes Bagracote in IV Division are under consideration. The State executed leases in favour of several entities for 30 years. Name of Tea Estates with name of lessee, date of execution of lease deed and date of expiry are extracted in following table:- Name of Tea Estates Name of Lessee Date of Execution Effective From Date of Expiry Garganda Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. 19.07.1974 20.09.1965 19.09.1995 Dhumchipara Birpara Tea Co Ltd. 06.12.1975 13.09.1974 12.09.2004 Huntapara Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 25.11.1980 03.12.1974 02.12.2004 Tulsipara Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. & Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 26.02.1980 18.04.1974 17.04.2004 Birpara Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 25.11.1980 27.06.1978 26.06.2008 Bagracote I Bagracote Tea Co Ltd. 19.02.1973 22.05.1968 22.05.1998 Bagracote II Bagracote Tea Co Ltd. 11.10.1974 04.08.1970 04.08.2000 Bagracote III & IV Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 27.02.1980 24.02.1976 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) Tulsipara Tea Estate (v) Huntapara Tea Estate (vi) Dhumchipara Tea Estate (vii) Demdima Tea Estate Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 16B of the Tea Act, 1953 (29 of 1953), the Central Government hereby authorises the Tea Board to take immediate steps to take over the management and the control of the above seven tea estates as per the provisions of Chapter IIIA of the Tea Act, 1953. 11. The Corporate Debtor challenged the Notification dated 28.01.2016 before the High Court of Calcutta by means of Writ Petition No 1897 (W) of 2016 which writ petition came to be dismissed by Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on 15.03.2016 upholding the Notification. The Corporate Debtor filed an Appeal in the High Court being M.A.T No. 562 of 2016 challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge. Division Bench noted the submissions of the parties and directed for interim management under which the Writ Petitioners were to run the gardens in a prudent businessman like manner after keeping the Tea Board informed. After the interim order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 20.09.2016, the Corporate Debtor entere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea Gardens to 'Merico Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.' and Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 13. An application was filed by the Resolution Professional being IA No.1256/KB/2020 where along with other prayers in prayer (a), following was prayed by the Resolution Professional:- "a) To Pass an order under Section 19(3) read with Section 25(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 directing the Respondent to comply with the directions of the Applicant and to extend all assistance and co-operation to the Applicant as required by him for taking over possession of the Hantapara, Garganda, Tulsipara and Dumchipara tea estates and for carrying out the valuation of the said tea estates." 14. The application filed by the Resolution Professional was opposed by 'Merico Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.' which was managing the operation of Tea Estates Huntapara, Garganda, Tulsipara and Dumchipara. It was pleaded by the Respondent No.1 that the leases of the aforesaid four estates had long expired and there is no leasehold rights with the Corporate Debtor, hence, prayers as made by the Resolution Professional cannot be granted. Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties by impugned order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Respondent No. 6 of the concerned district and the local police station be directed to ensure that the respondent No. 1 and/orit's menservants and agents and/or any third party does not have any access to the said Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea gardens and is not able to enter or possess or seize the assets thereof or to carry on business with the assets and properties of the said tea gardens being Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea gardens; e) The respondent No.4 and 6 and the police authorities of the concerned district / police station be directed to evict the respondent No.1 and/or it's men, servants and agents from the said tea gardens being Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea gardens; f) Permanent injunction restraining all statutory authorities concerned not to grant any permission or provide any lease or license or any other manner of authority to the respondent No. 1 and/or to its men servants and agents and or associates and/or sister concerns to assert any possession or right to carry on business over and in respect of the said tea gardens being Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea gardens; g) Pass such other/further orders and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n perusal of the records it is apparent from the proceedings of the tripartite review meeting held on 20.12.2021 in respect of Killcott Tea Garden and Nagaisuree Tea Garden, in the presence of the Trade Unions, Additional Labour Commissioner, North Benchal Zone Government of West Bengal, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Malbazaar, and the Managers of the respective Tea Garden, wherein it is stated that based on a bipartite agreement signed between Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and the Trade Union of the two Tea Gardens, Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. is in possession of the two Tea Gardens and that the Tea Gardens started functioning from 03 November 2021 and has been in operation. 51. In a letter dated 08 March 2022, the Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal that Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd has been entrusted to run the two Tea Gardens under the supervision and guidance of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. The letter has been given hereunder for easy reference." 17. In IA No.415/KB/2021 filed by the Resolution Professional, Resolution Professional has prayed for direction to handover the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Pvt. Ltd. who was successfully running other four Tea Gardens. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties by the impugned order has rejected the IA No.415/KB/2021. Adjudicating Authority held that the applications raising similar question in IA No.1256/KB/2020 and IA No.1111/KB/2021 has already been decided. The lease granted in favour of the corporate debtor in Birpara Tea Estate has not been renewed. Resolution Professional cannot be directed to give possession of the gardens. With the said observation, the application was rejected. 19. IA No.665/KB/2021 was filed by the Resolution Professional for direction to Respondent No.1- 'Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd.' and Respondent No.2 to handover the possession, operation and management of the Bagracote Tea Estate to the Resolution Professional. The lease for Bagracote Tea Estate was granted by the Bagracote Division-I on 19.02.1973 which came to an end on 22.02.1998. It was pleaded that the lease of Bagracote Division-I had been renewed on 19.06.1998 w.e.f 20.05.1998. The lease of Bagracote Divisions- II, III & IV came to end on 04.08.2002 & 24.02.2006. Resolution Professional's case in the application was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel. Since the arguments are common and issue involved is conclusively covered by the order passed by this Bench earlier, there is no need to once again give more and more time for hearing the same arguments on behalf of the Resolution Professional and the Respondent No. 1. 21. We have thus briefly heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 22. Similar applications have been filed by the Resolution Professional for possession of Tea Estates. The only concern is that the Corporate Debtor is in financial stress and whether the Resolution Professional would be able to run these Tea Estates. 23. The lease given to the Corporate Debtor has not been renewed in favour of the Corporate Debtor hence, it is out of question that the Resolution Professional can take possession of the Tea Gardens to which the Corporate Debtor has no ownership. 24. In this view of the matter, the prayers asked for in the present IA cannot be granted. I.A. (IB) No. 665/KB/2021 is, therefore, dismissed, but in the facts of the case, without costs. Liberty to apply is granted if and when the Government of West Bengal takes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Senior Advocate with Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Advocate has appeared for Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, Intervenor. 23. Learned counsel for the Appellant's submissions are common to all the appeals except some additional submissions advanced in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 672 of 2022, which we shall additionally notice. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the application filed by the Resolution Professional for taking possession of the tea gardens which were leased to the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that with regard to all tea gardens whose lease has expired application for renewal was filed by the Corporate Debtor which never came to be decided i.e. either rejected or allowed. It is submitted that with regard to Kilcott Tea Estate the lease deed stands renewed by lease deed dated 15.11.1995, which is valid till 23.08.2025. In respect to Bagrakote Tea Division-I renewal has been granted which is operative till 21.05.2028. When renewal has already been applied, the Corporate Debtor was entitled to continue in possession of the tea gardens and the possession of the Corporate Debtor cannot be said to be pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al that nonpayment of salami invalidates the valid and continuing renewal of the lease deeds granted in favor of the Corporate Debtor are entirely devoid of merit. There is no legal basis to the claim of Sammelan and Merico to the tea gardens. The Adjudicating Authority on 03.03.2022 had directed the Respondent No. 1 to submit documents in regard to its right to tea gardens. No documents could be produced by Respondent No.1 which can entitle it to take over two tea estates during the period of moratorium. The Adjudicating Authority wrongly relied on letter dated 08.03.2022 issued by Principal Secretary, Labour Department. When the tea gardens were in possession and control of the Corporate Debtor/Resolution Professional, no authority vested in Principal Secretary, Labour Department to handover the possession of the tea gardens to Respondent No. 1. Tea gardens have been given on lease by the Lessor i.e. Land & Land Reforms Department of Government of West Bengal and authority, if any, for handing over is vested in Land & Land Reforms Department. No proceedings were initiated by Land & Land Reforms Department to enter into possession of the tea gardens. It is submitted that in the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with law. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his submissions has relied on judgments of this Tribunal and Hon'ble Supreme Court which we shall notice while considering submissions in detail. 24. Mrs. Maninder Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for State of West Bengal refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Corporate Debtor had no right to any of the tea gardens after expiry of lease which was initially granted by the State of West Bengal. It is submitted that the claim of the Appellant of renewal of the lease of tea estates Kilcott, Bagracote and Garganda is also misleading and incorrect. Renewal of lease could not have been made without pre-deposit of salami, which is statutory requirement. The renewal of three tea gardens is in breach of the mandate of Rule 4 read with Schedule F of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act & Rules 1954. Execution of renewal of above three tea estates was not approved by Land & Land Reforms Department of State of West Bengal. It is submitted that for post approval of the renewal a demand notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor to deposit salami which having not been deposited, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Memorandum itself mention that with regard to Garganda and Bagracote-I that: "as per Land department of GoWB, Kolkata, renewal are not done properly". With regard to Kilcott, in reference to renewal dated 15.11.1995, District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri issued letter dated 04.08.2016 to the Corporate Debtor to deposit the salami which having not been deposited no valid renewal can be claimed. The submission of the Resolution Professional that there shall be deemed automatic renewal as per terms of the lease is wholly incorrect and not in accordance with law. There can be no question of any deemed renewal of the leases in favour of the Corporate Debtor nor any such clause is contained in the lease deed. Renewal granted in favour of the Corporate Debtor with regard to Kilcott, Bagracote and Garganda are void and inoperative, the Corporate Debtor having not complied with the statutory requirement of renewal of the lease. The submission of the Appellant that the State could not have re- entered possession of the tea estates without taking steps for resumption of lease is incorrect as the concept of resumption of lease can only be utilized during currency of the lease accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bengal has filed an application i.e. IA No.8/KB/2023 seeking exclusion of the tea estates belonging to the State from the purview of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, which application has been rejected on 26.04.2024, against which the State has filed an appeal, which is pending consideration. 28. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has opposed the IA filed by the State Bank of India as well as IA filed by Uniglobal Papers Private Limited. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor cease to have any right in the tea gardens so no valid security interest can be created in favour of State Bank of India in Nagaisuree and Kilcott tea gardens. It is submitted that the mortgage dated 09.10.2013 relied by the State Bank of India shall not give any benefit to the State Bank of India owing to non-payment of salami with regard to Nagaisuree and Kilcott tea gardens, which is claimed to be renewed. Opposing the application filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant, it is submitted that the tea gardens not being estate of the Corporate Debtor, there is no occasion for the Resolution Professional to take possession. No right can be claimed in the tea gardens whose lease has alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ungliot Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 24.08.1973 09.02.1970 08.02.2000 Kilcott Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 22.08.1965 24.08.1965 21.08.1995 Nagaisuree Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 30.01.1975 31.10.1972 30.10.2002 33. Information Memorandum was prepared by the Resolution Professional, which Information Memorandum has also been brought on the record. Information Memorandum also notices the nine tea gardens and the date of validity of the lease deeds.It is useful to extract the status of tea estates as reflected in the Information Memorandum, which is as follows: "Status of Leasehold Tea Estates:- Tea Estates Valid upto Birpara 26.06.2008 Lankapara 21.06.2006 Dumchipara 12.09.2004 Hantapara 02.12.2004 Nagaisuree 30.10.2002 Gungaram 06.08.2008** Garganda 18.09.2026 Tulsipara 17.04.2004 Kilcott 23.08.2025* Bagracote III & IV 31.03.2011 Runglee 08.02.2000 Marybong 08.02.2000 Bagracote-I 22.05.2028 Bagracote-II 03.08.2000 * As per land department of GoWB Kolkata these lease renewals are not done properly. ** The lease renewal agreement registration executed on 02nd September, 2020 for 30 years." 34. Information Memorandum also captures that renewal of leases of Ki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where period of lease has come to an end before commencement of the CIRP and application for renewal has been filed by the Corporate Debtor, the lease shall be deemed to be renewed since no decision has yet been taken by the State of West Bengal either accepting or rejecting the application? 3. Whether renewal of the lease deed of Kilcott Tea Estate w.e.f. 15.11.1995 till 23.08.2025 has to be treated to be valid renewal, similarly, renewal of lease deed of Garganda w.e.f. 08.11.1996 to 18.09.2026 has to be treated as valid renewal and renewal of lease deed of Bagrakote Tea Division-I dated 19.06.1998 has to be treated as a valid renewal? 4. Whether non-payment of Salami as required to be paid as per West Bengal Estate Acquisition Rules 1954 by the Corporate Debtor while execution of renewal of lease deed shall make the renewal void and inoperative? 5. Whether order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.1256/KB/2020 rejecting the application with regard to four Tea Gardens - Dhumchipara, Garganda, Tulsipara and Hantapara deserve to be set aside? 6. Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed error in relying on order dated 28.05.2021 in IA No.1256/K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpression "including" occurring in the end of sub-Section (f) and sub-Clause (iv) refers to Intangible Assets including Intellectual Property. The Leasehold Rights are Intangible Assets, which is now a settled proposition of law. 40. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of `Victory Iron Works Ltd.' Vs. `Jitendra Lohia & Anr.' in (2023) 7 SCC 227. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in above case had occasion to consider right to develop an immovable property. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Development Rights created in favour of the Corporate Debtor are assets, within meaning of expression Section 3(27) of the IBC. Section 3(27) of the IBC defines property which is an inclusive liquidation, provides as follows: "3. Definitions.-In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,- (27) "property" includes money, goods, actionable claims, land and every description of property situated in India or outside India and every description of interest including present or future or vested or contingent interest arising out of, or incidental to, property;" 41. Section 3(27) expressly includes "every descriptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the possession of the corporate debtor?" 44. In Para 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately held after considering the several other statutes came to conclusion that Development Rights created in favour of the Corporate Debtor constitutes Property within meaning of Section 3(27). In Paragraph 38 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering Question No. 1, laid down as follows: "38. From the sequence of events narrated above and the terms and conditions contained in the agreements entered into by the parties, it is more clear than a crystal that a bundle of rights and interests were created in favour of the corporate debtor, over the immovable property in question. The creation of these bundle of rights and interests was actually for a valid consideration. But for the payment of such consideration, Energy Properties would not even have become the owner of the property in dispute. Therefore, the development rights created in favour of the corporate debtor constitute "property" within the meaning of the expression under Section 3(27) IBC. At the cost of repetition, it must be recapitulated that the definition of the expression "property" under Section 3(27) includes "every de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n advanced by the Respondent is that Leasehold Rights of the Corporate Debtor had come to an end by efflux of time on the date, when CIRP commenced, hence the provision of Section 18(1)(f) and Section 25 does not empower the RP to pray for possession and custody and control of the Assets. The question as to whether the Leasehold Rights in the 9 Tea Gardens which are subject matter of this Appeal subsists, shall be considered when we enter into the other issues framed in the Appeal and our discussion on the issue is confined to the legal principal which is advanced before us. In view of the forgoing discussions, we answer Question No.1 as follows: "The subsisting Leasehold Rights in the Tea Garden of the Corporate Debtor are Assets of the Corporate Debtor which need to be taken control by the RP under Section 18(1)(f) and Section 25 of the IBC". Question No. 2 49. We have noted above the status of Leasehold Tea Estates in tabular form as per the details noticed against the 9 Tea States, apart from 3 Tea Gardens, namely Garganda, Killcott and Bagracote I. The case of the Appellant is that the leases of other 6 Tea Gardens have not been renewed. Appellant's case is that Corpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 51. The Lease was registered on 25.10.1975 with the sub-Registrar Office, District Jalpaiguri. 52. Case of the Appellant is that Application for renewal was filed before the expiry of the term of the Lease. The Clause 16 of the Lease as extracted above clearly indicates that Lease shall be entitled to renewal for further period of 30 Years subject to the rules and terms and conditions of the Lease and such other terms and conditions as the State Government may from time to time consider it necessary to impose and include in such renewed lease or leases. 53. Thus, the Clause itself contemplates that renewal is not automatic nor Clause 16 contains concept of extension of the Lease. Renewal has to be made by the State in such terms and conditions as State Government may impose while renewing the Lease. 54. The submission of the Appellant is that when an Application is filed for renewal of the Lease, there shall be automatic deemed renewal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down in the matter of `Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd.' Vs. `Hede & Company' reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614, that to give effect to renewal of the Lease a document has to be executed for renewal of the Agreement and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted relief of injunction, as prayed for in the suit, for the simple reason that there is no subsisting agreement evidenced by a written document or declared by a court. If there is no such agreement, there is no question of enforcing clauses 15 and 20 thereof. The appellants ought to have prayed for a declaration that their agreement stood renewed automatically on exercise of option for renewal and only on that basis could they have sought an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and operation. Having not done so, they cannot be permitted to camouflage the real issue and claim an order of injunction without establishing the subsistence of a valid agreement. In the instant suit as well they could have sought a declaration that the agreement stood renewed automatically but such a claim would have been barred by limitation since more than 3 years had elapsed after a categoric denial of their right claiming renewal or automatic renewal by the respondent- defendants." 55. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of `State of UP & Ors.' Vs. `Lal Ji Tandon' reported in (2004) 1 SCC 1 had also dwelt upon difference between extension and renewal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period. To the legal notice seeking renewal of lease, the lessor gave no reply. The agreement of renewal contained in Clause (7) read with Clause (9) required fulfillment of two conditions; first the exercise of option of renewal by the lessee before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local Mukhia or Panchas of the village. The aforesaid renewal Clauses (7) & (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression 'agreement to the contrary' used in Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under the aforesaid clauses option to seek renewal was to be exercised before expiry of the lease and on specified conditions. 19. The lessor in the present case had neither expressly nor impliedly agreed for renewal. The renewal as provided in the original contract was required to be obtained by following a specified procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms or in the alternative through the mediation of Mukhias and Panchas. In the instant case, there is a renewal clause in the contract prescribing a particular period and mode of renewa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, firstly the communication dated 11.08.2012 does not stipulate any communication to renew the Lease Agreement. It merely purports to send rent for a certain period. Further, as per the legal position stated above even if the rent has been sent and accepted by the plaintiff it would not have implied automatic renewal of the lease deed. Further a mere communication to renew the lease does not imply renewal of the Lease-Deed. The alleged attempt to renew is also made after expiry of the Lease Deed and contrary to the renewal clause in the Lease Agreement. I have no hesitation in holding that the lease of the suit property never stood renewed." 57. The law is thus well settled that when original Lease Deed contemplates the renewal of the Lease, the renewal has to be in accordance with the terms of renewal as contemplated in the Lease in question. Although, renewal is contemplated for further period of 30 Years, but the said renewal is hedged by the rules and terms and conditions of the Lease and such other terms and conditions as the State Government may from time to time may impose. 58. One more aspect regarding renewal of the Lease needs to be noted. In West Bengal State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified in the Rules. So far as the tea garden is concerned, it has been specifically provided that an intermediary shall hold such land on the terms and conditions set out in Schedule F appended to the Rules. Therefore, for better appreciation, Schedule F and Form 1 for the purpose of granting lease for tea garden have been reproduced here: "SCHEDULE F [Rule 4] 1. Land comprised in a tea garden retained by an intermediary under sub-section (1), read with sub-section (3), of Section 6 shall be deemed to be held directly under the State from the date of vesting as a tenant [until a lease is granted in Form 1 appended to this schedule, on such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Collector in a summary settlement, and thereafter, on a lease being granted in Form 1 appended to this schedule, on the terms and conditions specified in such lease]. There shall be a lease in Form 1 in respect of each such intermediary, and the same shall be registered and numbered in the office of the Collector. (1-A)-(1-B)*** 2. The first lease shall be given from the date of the order under sub-section (3) of Section 6 or from the date of the determination of the rent under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the State in respect of tea garden, the lessee shall be liable to pay salami at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per hectare of the land leased out. However, paragraph 1-B made it clear that in case of transfer of leasehold interest, the transferee shall not be liable to pay salami during the unexpired period of lease, but after the expiry of the existing period of lease the transferee shall be liable to pay salami at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per hectare before the lease is further renewed. 31. Admittedly, before the expiry of the lease in question in 1998, the respondent/transferee stepped into the shoes of the original lessee in the year 1990. In 1994, by notification dated 1.6.1994, an amendment was brought in Schedule F of the Rules, as discussed hereinabove, in terms of clause I-B. Therefore, the respondent shall not be liable to pay salami during the unexpired period of lease up to 1998. The State Government has rightly not made any claim for salami for the unexpired period of lease, but for the fresh renewal of lease after 1998 which is a fresh grant. The demand of salami by State Government for according sanction for renewal of lease cannot and shall not by any stretch of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely held that the Lessee was liable to pay salami and demand made by Collector was justified. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the amendment in Schedule F of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rule 1954 with effect from 01.06.1994, providing for payment of salami for renewal of the Lease. It is relevant to notice that in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority 28.05.2021, rejecting I.A. 1256/KB/2020 filed by the RP, submission on behalf of the RP was made that leases were not renewed due to demand of salami imposed by State for renewal of the Agreement. Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 2.15 noticed the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and has also noted the challenge to the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules 1954, amendment to Schedule F. Para 2.15 in the order of the Adjudicating Authority is as follows: "2.15. Mr. Joy Saha submits that the lease deed with respect to the other three gardens were could not be renewed due to the demand of salami imposed by the state for renewal of lease agreements. This demand of salami was challenged before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in WP (LRT) No.288/2005, which held in favour of the tea garden own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d: Sl. No. Tea Estate Valid upto 1. Garganda 08.09.2026 2. Kilcott 23.08.2025 3. Bagarcote Div. I 22.05.2028 68. Against above three Tea Estates, there was asterisk put in the Information memorandum, which asterisk reads - "as per Land Department of Government of West Bengal, Kolkatta, Lease renewal are not done properly". 69. The period of other leases had come to an end much before 05.03.2020. The submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that renewal have been granted with the aforesaid three Tea Estates by execution of Registered Renewal Lease Deed, hence, the above three Tea Estates are clearly assets of the Corporate Debtor and the RP was entitled to take possession of above three Tea Estates. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that insofar as Tea Estate of Garganda, the possession of the said Tea Estate was handed over by Corporate Debtor itself by Bipartite Agreement in favour of Merico much before initiation of CIRP. With regard to Tea Estate of Kilcott, it is pleaded that the possession of this Tea Estate was taken on 03.11.2021 and handed to Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. ("Sammelan Tea"). With regard to Tea Estate of Bag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Bengal the land and hereditaments mentioned and described in Schedule "A" here from all encumbrances AND WHEREAS under sub- section 6 of the said Act the State Government has issued and order allowing the LESSEE to retain out of the lands of Schedule "A" the lands mentioned and described in Schedule "B" hereunder. AND WHEREAS under sub-section (2 of section 42 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1958, Rs.9,152.56 (Rupees Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two and Paisa Fifty Six only was assessed as the rent payable by the Lessee annually for the part of the land and hereditaments described in Schedule "A" herein written allowed to be retained under Sub-section 3 of section 6 of the said Act." 71. As per Form-1, Schedule-F, the lease was for period of 30 years from from 24th day of August, 1965, which is clearly mentioned in the Lease Deed itself. The Lease Deed was on yearly rent of Rs.9152 and paisa 56 payable in two equal instalments on or before 31st August and 28th February in each and every year. The above Lease Deed was for 30 years from 24.08.1965. Lease Deed of Kilcott Tea Garden was renewed by Indenture made on 15.11.1995 in favour of M/s. Duncans Industries Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hty) only without any deduction payable in two equal instalments on or/before (a) 30th June and 31st December (b) 31 August and 28th February in each and every year. And the Lessee/Lessees to the intent that the obligation may continue throughout period of the demise doth/do hereby agree and covenant and agree with the lessor as follows:- 1. That the lessee/lessees shall pay- (a) The said rent at the times and in the manner aforesaid. (b) All arrear rents, if any, at the above rate at the times and in the manner as the State Government may direct and (c) Other rates, taxes and assessments that are now, or may at any time hereafter be, assessed charged or imposed on the said demised land and hereiditaments, against proper receipts from the collector for the amounts paid No.payment shall be recognised by the lessors without such receipts. (1A) When the lease of a tea garden is determined and the tea garden is leased afresh to a new lessee, the later shall be liable to pay salami at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 per hectare of the land leased out. (1B) In case of a transfer of the leasehold interest, except by way of inheritance, the transferee shall not be liable to pay sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of West Bengal authorised on that behalf free and undisturbed access to the said lands and hereditaments for purposes of inspection, survey and otherwise. 10. That the Lessee/Lessees shall in such form as may from time to time be prescribed by the said Government furnish the collector with full information as to births and deaths in the lands and hereinditaments and as sot the progress of cultivation outturn of tea. 11. That the Lessee/Lessees shall furnish proper and suitable accommodation for the residence of chaukidars, if ay be found necessary to be appointed in such gardens to carry out the duties imposed under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1956. 12. That the Lessee/Lessees shall not sub-let the said land and here ditaments of any part thereof. Provided that lands comprised in the said lands and hereditaments may be licensed out for growing cardamom thereon. So, however, that in respect of any land so licensed out the lesseee shall pay rent at the rate of fifteen rupees per acre but shall not realised from he licensee any fees exceeding by more than twenty five per cent, the amount of rent so payable by him." Yearly rent was fixed as Rs.13,180 payable in two eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases of nine tea gardens, came to an end and terminated by efflux of time, prior to commencement of CIRP, i.e., on 5th March, 2020. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, in the tablur form, lease that expired and dates has been mentioned and in paragraph-8, it was pleaded that leasehold interest in all the Tea Gardens has come to an end. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit are as follows: "6. That the particulars of the leases for 30 years, in respect of the aforesaid Tea Estates granted by the Government of West Bengal, to the Corporate Debtor and its merged companies are set out hereunder: RESPECTIVE LEASES WITH EXPIRY DATES Name of Tea Estates Name of Lessee Date of Execution Effective From Date of Expiry Garganda Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. 19.07.1974 20.09.1995 19.09.1995 Dhumchipara Bipara Tea Co Ltd. 06.12.1975 13.09.1974 12.09.2004 Huntapara Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 25.11.1980 03.12.1974 02.12.2004 Tulsipara Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. & Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 26.02.1980 18.04.1974 17.04.2004 Birpara Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 25.11.1980 27.06.1978 26.06.2008 Bagracote I Bagracote Tea Co Ltd 19.02.1973 22.05.1968 22.05.1998 Bagracot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh appropriate valid Lease in respect of the said Tea Garden. The Corporate Debtor willfully failed and neglected to do so. Neither the said Notice nor the invalidation of the purported renewal of lease so obtained illegally and malafide was challenged by the Corporate Debtor knowing fully well that there had been factual noncompliance of the statutory preconditions and as such purported renewal of Lease in respect of the Kilcott Tea Estate so obtained was void, illegal and unenforceable. A copy of the letter dated 4th August, 2016 issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri, is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R- 2" 75. Thus, the plea, which was taken by the State is that the renewal of lease is ex-facie contrary to law in force and in gross breach of the mandated statutory provisions as embodied in Rule 4 read with Schedule F of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act & Rules 1954. It was further pleaded that office of District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri has issued a notice to the Manager, Kilcott Tea Garden to pay an amount of Rs.57,25,711 towards required Salami. The copy of the letter dated 04.08.2016, which was written to the Manager, Kilcott Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court delivered its judgment on May 06, 2015, in Civil Appeal No.2548 of 2006 in the matter of State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Calcutta Minerals Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.; and Civil Appeal No.2549 of 2006 in the matter of Collector, Jalpaiguri and another vs. Darjeeling Dooars Plantations (Tea) Ltd. and another, by which judgment, the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was set aside and Notification dated 01.06.1994 was upheld. It was held that the State Government was entitled to claim Salami. 77. In the facts of the present case, we have already noticed Clause 16(a) of the original Lease Deed, which provided that at the time of renewal of the lease, the State is entitled to renew the lease on such terms and conditions as it may determined. For ready reference, Clause 16A is extracted below: (16) (a) That the Lessee/ Lessees shall be entitled to the renewal of this lease for a further period of thirty years and to successive renewals, for, similar, periods, subject to the rules and the terms and, conditions of this lease and to such other terms and conditions as the State Government may from time to time consider it necessary to impose and include in such renewed leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter has been issued on 04.08.2016. As observed above, at the time of renewing of Lease Deed, it was open for the State of West Bengal to incorporate such conditions as may deemed fit, including condition of payment of Salami for renewal of the Lease Deed, but in the renewed Lease Deed, no such payment of Salami has been computed or provided for and only amount, which was mentioned in the Lease Deed is towards rent of Rs.13,180/-, as noted above. When the Lease Deed, which was executed on 15.11.1995 was in accordance with the law and cannot be held to be void on the ground non-payment of Salami. Issuing a subsequent letter on 04.08.2016, where demand of Salami has been made, shall not make the execution of the Lease Deed void or inoperative. At best, the State could have asked the lessee of Kilcott Tea Garden to enter into Supplementary Lease Deed, providing for payment of Salami, or take any action as permissible in accordance with law with regard to renewed Lease Deed. Admittedly, the State has not brought any order on the record, cancelling the renewed Lease Deed dated 15.11.1995. When the Lease Deed, which was executed and registered and is not cancelled, we fail to see, how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent Agreements prior to 05.03.2020 and Merico was in possession of the different Tea Estates and was carrying out the operations. The possession of Hantapara and Garganda Tea Estates was handed over to Merico on 29.01.2018, in pursuance of Agreement executed between the Corporate Debtor and the Merico. 84. We have already noticed the Notification issued by the Central Government on 28.01.2016 for taking over control of the management of Tea Gardens by the Tea Board. The Notification was challenged by the Corporate Debtor before the Calcutta High Court by filing a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by Learned Single Judge, against which an Appeal was filed and Division Bench vide order dated 20.09.2016 passed an interim order with object to enable the Gardens to run. The Corporate Debtor was asked to take possession and run the Tea Gardens as a Caretaker. The Corporate Debtor, who could not itself run the Tea Gardens, entered into an Agreement with Merico with respect to Hantapara and Garganda Tea Estates on 29.01.2018 for five years. With respect to Tulsipara, an Agreement was entered on 20.07.2018 and for Dumchipara Tea Estate, an Agreement was entered on 19.08.2019. 85. Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raph 5.16 took the view that Corporate Debtor's financial position re not good and the RP is not in a position run the four Tea Gardens, if it was handed over to him on a platter today. While making the above observation in paragraph 5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19, the Application came to be rejected. Paragraphs 5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 are as follows: "5.16. Be that as it may, when it is the admitted case of the RP that the corporate debtor's financials are not too good and there is nothing on record to indicate that the financials of the corporate debtor have suddenly been on the upswing - we do not see how the RP would be in a position to run the four tea gardens. The RP is not in any position to run the four tea gardens if it were handed over to him on a platter today. 5.17. A procrustean approach to the CIRP is to be eschewed in favour of a more level-headed one keeping in view natural variation and individuality of the CIRP itself. It has to take into account local circumstances and legitimate expectations. In the present case, until the lease is renewed in favour of Duncans, one cannot see how the RP can even stake a claim for taking over. Merico's occupation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , but the Application was not liable to be rejected with regard to Garganda Tea Garden, which lease was renewed by the State of West Bengal by executing a registered renewed Lease Deed dated 08.11.1996. Thus, the order dated 28.05.2201 deserve to be partly set aside, insofar as it related to Tea Garden Garganda. It is held that RP was entitled to take custody and possession of Tea Garden Garganda, whose lease having been renewed on 08.11.1996 and the Corporate Debtor has subsisting right in the Lease Deed till 08.09.2026. 89. In result, the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.672 of 2021 deserves to be partly allowed to the above extent. Question No.6 90. The Adjudicating Authority while rejecting the other Application filed by the RP has relied on its order dated 28.05.2021 passed in IA No.1256/KB/2020 and held that since it has considered similar issues in IA 1256 of 2020, the Application filed by RP for taking custody and control of the other Tea Gardens deserved to be rejected. We may refer to the order of the Adjudicating Authority passed dated 21.04.2022, in IA No.1111/KB/2021, which Application was filed by the RP for taking possession of two Tea Gardens, namely - Kilcott ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since arguments are common and issue involved is conclusively covered by the order, observed following in paragraph 22 of the order dated 09.05.2022: "22. During the course of hearing it was noticed that, in this application also, the question of law is similar to the one in I.A.(IB) No. 1256/KB/2020 and I.A.(IB) No. 1111/KB/2021. These two applications have already been decided after hearing exhaustive arguments of the learned Senior Counsel. Since the arguments are common and issue involved is conclusively covered by the order passed by this Bench earlier, there is no need to once again give more and more time for hearing the same arguments on behalf of the Resolution Professional and the the Respondent No. 1." 94. In IA No.109/KB/2022, which was filed by the RP for taking possession of Rungli Rungliot Tea Garden, which Application also came to be rejected, relying on the order passed in IA No.1256/KB/2020. In paragraph 5 of the order dated 18.07.2022 passed in IA No.109/KB/2022, following has been observed: "5. Similar applications have been filed by the Resolution Professional for possession of other Tea Gardens. This Adjudicating Authority in I.A. (IB) No. 1256/KB/2018 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewed on 22.05.1998 and Kilcott Tea Garden, which was renewed on 15.11.1995 till 23.08.2025. Thus, mechanically relying on the order dated 28.05.2021 in IA No.1256/KB/2020 is not sustainable. While passing the subsequent orders, rejecting the IAs filed by the RP, the Adjudicating Authority was required to consider the Applications. In any view of the matter, we have already considered and held above that the leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor, subsisting in three Tea Gardens namely - Garganda, Kilcott and Bagarcote. Hence, the Applications filed by the RP, insofar as above three Tea Gardens, deserve to be allowed. Question No.7 97. One of the submissions, which has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that possession taken by the Sammelan and Merico, subsequent to the order dated 05.03.2020, violates Section 14 of the Code. 98. From the pleadings of State of West Bengal in its counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 and 7 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.593 of 2022, the State itself has given the dates when possession was handed over to Merico or Sammelan of different Tea Gardens. The possession of Birpara Tea Estate was taken by Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July 2021 in the presence of high Officials of the Govt. of West Bengal, local Political Leaders, Union representatives and thousands of workers and labourers and since then undertaken all necessary process of renovations and repair of the factory, plants and machinery, restoration of Electricity and water connections, rejuvenation of the Tea Garden as a whole and paid dues and is also regularly paying the wages and due entitlements of the workers, without a single retrenchment or default." 101. Further, possession of Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates were taken by the Sammelan with effect from 03.11.2021, which is pleaded in paragraph 11(ii), which is as follows: "11(ii) That it is most humbly submitted that in compliance of the terms so agreed, Sammelan Tea took over and reopened both the Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates with effect from 3rd November, 2021 in the presence of high officials of the Govt. of West Bengal. Since taking over, Sammelan Tea has undertaken all necessary remedial steps, including payment of dues and regular timely payments of all wages and entitlements of the workers to their satisfactions, timely deposits of Statutory payments, replacements of junk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to - (a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangement as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority; (b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. (4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process: Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceed unhindered by any of the obstacles that would otherwise be caused and that are dealt with by Section 14. The statutory freeze that has thus been made is, unlike its predecessor in the SICA, 1985 only a limited one, which is expressly limited by Section 31(3) of the Code, to the date of admission of an insolvency petition up to the date that the adjudicating authority either allows a resolution plan to come into effect or states that the corporate debtor must go into the liquidation. For this temporary period, at least, all the things referred to under Section 14 must be strictly observed so that the corporate debtor may finally be put back on its feet albeit with a new management." 105. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. Sasntanu T. Ray Resolution Professional and Anr. - (2022) SCC OnLine NCLAT 105. In the above case also, this Tribunal had occasion to consider Section 14. The facts of the case have been noticed in paragraph-1 of the judgment, which are as follows: "1. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Respondent to restrain from terminating the lease agreement dated 21.1.2015 till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or to take any further step in this respect; c. To direct the Respondent to extend their co-operation in concluding the corporate insolvency resolution process in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; d. Till the disposal of this MA, to pass an order directing and injuncting the Respondent from taking possession of the said leasehold land till such time this MA is disposed of. e. For interim and ad interim orders in terms of prayers (1) to (3) above."" 106. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the prayer (a) in the Application, aggrieved by which order, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has filed the Appeal. Question of Section 14, came for consideration in the above context. This Tribunal noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra K. Bhutta (supra) and in paragraph 8, two questions were noticed, which arise for consideration. Paragraph 8 of the judgment is as follows: "8. From the submissions of the Counsel for the parties, following questions arise for consideration in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Authority. We however, hasten to add that the quashing of the Notice dated 08.11.2019 does not create any fetter on the rights of the Appellant to pass appropriate order for breach of terms of lease after CIRP is over. The Adjudicating Authority with regard to prayers (b) to (d) has directed the Appellant not to take any coercive action till the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan is heard by the Adjudicating Authority. The above direction was also to protect the status quo which was existing on the date of initiation of CIRP. We, however, make it clear that as soon as the CIRP is over, the Appellant shall have all powers to take appropriate action." 108. When we look into the facts of the present case, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor has subsisting rights in three Tea Gardens, i.e., Garganda, Kilcott and Bagracote-I as noticed above. Although, possession of Garganda was taken prior to enforcement of moratorium, but possession of Kilcott and Bagaracote was taken respectively on 03.11.2021 and 01.07.2021 as noticed above. The Corporate Debtor has subsisting rights in the above leases of Bagaracote and Kilcott, which were renewed. Hence, after the enforcement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agracote Div.I, lease was renewed with effect from 19.06.1998 for 30 years, hence, the Corporate Debtor/ has subsisting right. Thus, the Application, IA No.665/KB/2021, ought not to have been rejected with regard to Bagracote Div.I. 113. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.672 of 2021 deserved to be partly allowed and set aside the order passed by Adjudicating Authority dated 28.05.2021 in IA No.1256/KB/2020, insofar as Tea Garden Garganda is concerned. 114. Similarly, the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.592 of 2022 deserve to be partly allowed by setting aside order dated 21.04.2022 in IA No.1111/KB/2021. Accordingly, we partly set aside order dated 21.04.2021 in IA No.1111/KB/2021 insofar as Tea Garden Kilcott is concerned. 115. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.754 of 2022 is also deserve to be partly allowed by setting aside order passed by Adjudicating Authority in IA No.665/KB/2021 insofar as Bagracote Div.I Tea Garden is concerned. 116. We may also notice the two Intervention Applications filed in these Appeals - one by State Bank of India being IA No.3712 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. No. Tea Estate Valid upto 1. Garganda 08.09.2026 2. Kilcott 23.08.2025 3. Bagarcote Div. I 22.05.2028 121. The orders rejecting the IAs of RP insofar as the aforesaid three Tea Gardens are concerned are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. In view of the above, all the Appeal(s) are disposed of in following manner: I. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 672 of 2021 is partly allowed. The order dated 28.05.2021 passed in IA No.1256/KB/2020 is partly allowed, insofar as Garganda Tea Garden is concerned. The order of the Adjudicating Authority with respect to other Tea Gardens, i.e., Hantapara, Tulsipara and Dumchipara is affirmed. II. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.593 of 2022 is partly allowed. Order dated 21.04.2022 in IA No.1111/KB/2021 set aside, insofar it relates to Tea Garden Kilcott. Rest of the order is affirmed. III. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.754 of 2022 is partly allowed. Order dated 09.05.2022 passed in IA No.665/KB/2021, insofar as it relates to Bagracote Div.I is set aside. Rest of the order is affirmed. IV. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.628 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.907 of 2022 are dismissed. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
