TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore 30th November, 2012 with additional grace time of the three months. However, the applicant stated to have not taken any action till date except filing the instant application. It is also clearly mentioned by the Bank in the No Objection letter cited supra, that they will issue NOC only after receipt of all the proceeds as per the above referred Agreement to sell . The claim of Bank on the plots in question is premature and they are only entitled for deposit of sale title deeds of Borrowers, only in case they are registered in their name and otherwise they can proceed on Borrowers to recover their loan amount given to them. Hence, they are not proper and necessary party to be impleaded to the main Company Petition and it same is misconceived - the instant application lacks merits and thus it is liable to be dismissed. As Per: Rajesw ara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) - M/s. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. HELD THAT:- The assignment of the loan by the Bank to petitioner is not only accepted by the Respondent but it also obtained additional funding for ₹ 5,00,00,000/-. Accordingly new loan agreement dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Section 60(5) of the I BC, 2016, by inter seeking to permit the Objector herein to intervene in the main case and place their objections to the admission of the main Company Petition filed by Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts, as mentioned in the affidavit dated 28.11.2018 filed in support of the instant application, are as follows: (1) The Intervener/ Objector (hereinafter referred to as SBI ) is a banking corporation constituted under the SBI Act, 1955 having its Corporate Center at State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road Niraman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 021. The instant application has been filed through its administrative Office and is represented by its Chief Manager (Credit) S.N.Murthy, who is authorized to sign the application as per notification dated 21.06.1972 R/ w Regulations 76 and 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1956. (2) The Respondent, Sovereign Developers and Infrastructures Ltd. (herein after referred to as Sovereign Developers ) is a Company registered under the Provisions of the Companies act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of construction. The Respondent is the absolute owner the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the loan was hurriedly assigned to Phoenix ARC. (7) It is stated that the SBI issued legal notices through its advocate to the borrowers/ Home owners, Sovereign Developers, Karnataka Bank and Phoenix ARC, calling upon them to come forward and execute the sale deeds and consequently hand over the originals of the registered sale deeds/ property document to SBI immediately. However, only few of the recipients have responded to the notice. (8) It is stated that the said assignment of the loan and the classification of the account as NPA are contrary to the assurances held out of SBI is also in gross violation of established banking practice procedure. The same has resulted in severe prejudice and hardship to SBI. (9) It is stated that by assigning the loan and declaring the account as an NPA, Phoenix ARC and Karnataka Bank have violated their contractual commitment towards SBI. By concealment of the above breach, Phoenix ARC is misrepresenting that they are the sole secured creditors and that all recovery efforts would purportedly result in preferential recovering for them. Further though the flats were SBI's Entitlement, phoenix ARC are seeking to disentitle the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other hand has stated that application itself is not maintainable, and he has placed on record, the order of Hon'ble NCLAT, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 184 of 2019 between M/s.Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Vishal M Poonater Anr. Dated 22.04.2019, wherein the order dated 17.12.2018 passed in IA No.351/2018 by this Tribunal, was set aside with the following direction: For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and remit the case of the Adjudication with direction to decide the application after hearing the appellant and Corporate Debtor' in accordance with law. No other person should be given liberty at this stage. However, we make it clear that if the application U/ s 7 is admitted, it will be open to the aggrieved person to move before this Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the instant application has to be rejected by following the above ratio, and also urged the Tribunal to decide the question of admission, as per the merits of the case without further delay and no miscellaneous Application can be entertained at this stage. 6. Subsequent to the above I.A. No. 351 of 2018, anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on certificate or Possession Certificate from the appropriate authority or developer/ No objection Certificate by the Financier is granted in respect of the building in which the property is located, only the Vendor/ Developers shall remain in possession of the relevant property. f) The Financier will be entitled to recall the loan from the Borrower/ s in case the completion of the construction of the building in question is delayed beyond 6 (six) months from the completion date indicated by the Vendor/ Developers' and such decision to recall shall be at the discretion of the Financier. 8. The Karnataka Bank has addressed letter vide No. KBL/KOR/PF678/OR/10.11 dated 2nd June, 2011 to SBI by conveying their no objection for considering the Housing Loan Facility to the purchaser, however subject to condition that proceeds of Housing loan to be released and remitted to Karnataka bank A/C Sovereign Developers Infrastructure Limited, A/c No.0942000100170001 and they will issue 'No. Objection Certificate that the proceedings of the Housing loan to be and they issued a No Objection Certificate for registering the apartment and the undivided share in the land on receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.167/BB/2018 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. I.A No.295 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 167/BB/2018 Vinod Kumar V K Versus M/s. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. ORDER Per: Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) 1. I.A No.295 of 2019 in C.P(IB) No. 167/BB/2018 is filed by Shri Vinod Kumar V.K and 15 others (impleading Applicants), Under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC R/w Rule 11 and 60(5) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, by inter alia seeking to permit them to come on record as additional respondents in the above case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Application, are as follows: 1) This application has been filed on behalf of the Agreement Holder of the flats in different blocks of Sovereign Unnathi Project by the Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. 2) It is stated that the Respondent Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd has built about 1192 flats which is exclusive of the share of the owners. That, the Respondent Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure ltd has made advertisement for sale of those flats to the needs. That the proposed impleading appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement holders paid the Builder/ confirming party ₹ 1,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and the balance amount shall be payable in the manner of different stages of construction and with a condition to Construction of the apartment in Schedule 'B' property will be completed on or before December, 2012 as far as possible. Subsequent to the agreement to sale dated 05.06.2010, the agreement holder has paid sum of ₹ 17,14,428/- to the Respondent through different Cheques in different stages of construction and gave full supports to complete the project. 5) It is stated that, unfortunately the Respondent did not complete the project and violate the terms and conditions as stipulated in the agreement to sale and agreed to complete the project on or before December, 2012. Subsequently, the Respondent has issued a letter dated 26.08.2013 for reasons explained above for continued support, co-operation and payment of escalation incurred by the Respondent in order to complete the Sovereign Unnathi project an escalation amount of ₹ 6,75,000/- toward the additional sale consideration on account of payment of escalation and that the escalation amount s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Project. 8) That the proposed impleading applicant No.4 saw the advertisement and entered into agreement of sale with the Respondent, by agreeing to purchase Flat No.C2-11-2 and the sale consideration for sale of Schedule 'E' property is ₹ 1,60,000/- which is includes cost towards undivided share in the Land and the Construction cost. Taxes shall be applicable only on construction costs. The Purchaser/ Agreement holders paid the Builder/ confirming party ₹ 1,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and the balance amount shall be payable in the manner of different stages of construction and with a condition to Construction of the apartment in Schedule 'E' property will be completed on or before 30.05.2013 as far as possible. Subsequent to the agreement to sale dated 02.05.2011, the agreement holder has paid sum of ₹ 18,95,215/- to the Respondent through different Cheques in different stages of construction and gave full supports to complete the project. 9) It is stated that, unfortunately the Respondent did not complete the project and violate the terms and conditions as stipulated in the agreement to sale and agreed to complete the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of escalation and that the escalation amount sum of ₹ 6,75,000/- shall pay at the time of taking possession of the flat. Therefore, again the impleading applicant entered into an Addendum Agreement with Respondent and thereby mutually agreed that the completion date as per clause of the agreement to sell dated 09.07.2010 stands revised to 30th June, 2015 or offer of possession whichever is earlier, for the completion of the Project. 12) That the proposed impleading applicant No.6 saw the advertisement and entered into agreement of sale with the Respondent, by agreeing to purchase Flat No. B5-05-1 2 and the sale consideration for sale of Schedule 'B' property is ₹ 30,80,000/- which is includes cost towards undivided share in the Land and the Construction cost. Taxes shall be applicable only on construction costs. The Purchaser/ Agreement holders paid the Builder/ confirming party ₹ 2,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and the balance amount shall be payable in the manner of different stages of construction and with a condition to Construction of the apartment in Schedule 'B' property will be completed on or before 30th November, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the Respondent, by agreeing to purchase Flat No.C8-04-2 and the sale consideration for sale of Schedule 'B' property is ₹ 15,70,000/- which is includes cost towards undivided share in the Land and the Construction cost. Taxes shall be applicable only on construction costs. The Purchaser/ Agreement holders paid the Builder/ confirming party ₹ 1,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and the balance amount shall be payable in the manner of different stages of construction and with a condition to Construction of the apartment in Schedule 'B' property will be completed on or before 30th May, 2013 as far as possible. Subsequent to the agreement to sale dated 18.04.2011, the agreement holder has paid sum of ₹ 16,82,225/- to the Respondent through different Cheques in different stages of construction and gave full supports to complete the project. 16) It is stated that, unfortunately the Respondent did not complete the project and violate the terms and conditions as stipulated in the agreement to sale and agreed to complete the project on or before 30th May, 2013. Subsequently, the Respondent has issued a letter dated 26.08.2013 for reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g possession of the flat. Therefore, again the impleading applicant entered into an Addendum Agreement with Respondent and thereby mutually agreed that the completion date as per clause of the agreement to sell dated 18.04.2011 stands revised to 31st December, 2016 or offer of possession whichever is earlier, for the completion of the Project. 19) That the proposed impleading applicant No. 10 saw the advertisement and entered into agreement of sale with the Respondent, by agreeing to purchase Flat No.C1-10-2 and the sale consideration for sale of Schedule 'E' property is ₹ 16,40,000/- which is includes cost towards undivided share in the Land and the Construction cost. Taxes shall be applicable only on construction costs. The Purchaser/ Agreement holders paid the Builder/confirming party ₹ 1,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and the balance amount shall be payable in the manner of different stages of construction and with a condition to Construction of the apartment in Schedule 'E' property will be completed on or before 30th May, 2013 as far as possible. Subsequent to the agreement to sale dated 28.04.2011, the agreement holder has paid s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;E' property is ₹ 15,00,000/- which is includes cost towards undivided share in the Land and the Construction cost. Taxes shall be applicable only on construction costs. The Purchaser/ Agreement holders paid the Builder/ confirming party ₹ 1,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and the balance amount shall be payable in the manner of different stages of construction and with a condition to Construction of the apartment in Schedule 'E' property will be completed on or before 30th May, 2013 as far as possible. Subsequent to the agreement to sale dated 16.04.2011, the agreement holder has paid sum of ₹ 16,31,000/- to the Respondent through different Cheques in different stages of construction and gave full supports to complete the project. 23) It is stated that, unfortunately the Respondent did not complete the project and violate the terms and conditions as stipulated in the agreement to sale and agreed to complete the project on or before 30th May, 2013. Subsequently, the Respondent has issued a letter dated 26.08.2013 for reasons explained above for continued support, co-operation and payment of escalation incurred by the Respondent in orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and thereby mutually agreed that the completion date as per clause of the agreement to sell dated 28.04.2011 stands revised to 30th December, 2016 or offer of possession whichever is earlier, for the completion of the Project. 26) That the proposed impleading applicant No. 14 saw the advertisement and entered into agreement of sale with the Respondent, by agreeing to purchase Flat No.C6-02-2 and the sale consideration for sale of Schedule 'E' property is ₹ 15,00,000/- which is includes cost towards undivided share in the Land and the Construction cost. Taxes shall be applicable only on construction costs. The Purchaser/ Agreement holders paid the Builder/confirming party ₹ 1,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and the balance amount shall be payable in the manner of different stages of construction and with a condition to Construction of the apartment in Schedule 'E' property will be completed on or before 30th May, 2013 as far as possible. Subsequent to the agreement to sale dated 23.03.2011, the agreement holder has paid sum of ₹ 18,32,064/- to the Respondent through different Cheques in different stages of construction and gave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -operation and payment of escalation incurred by the Respondent in order to complete the Sovereign Unnathi project an escalation amount of ₹ 8,51,000/- toward the additional sale consideration on account of payment of escalation and that the escalation amount sum of ₹ 8,51,000/- shall pay at the time of taking possession of the flat. Therefore, again the impleading applicant entered into an Addendum Agreement with Respondent and thereby mutually agreed that the completion date as per clause of the agreement to sell dated 18.04.2011 stands revised to 31st December, 2016 or offer of possession whichever is earlier, for the completion of the Project. 30) That the proposed impleading applicant No. 16 saw the advertisement and entered into agreement of sale with the Respondent, by agreeing to purchase Flat No.B1-10-1 and the sale consideration for sale of Schedule 'B' property is ₹ 16,40,000/- which is includes cost towards undivided share in the Land and the Construction cost. Taxes shall be applicable only on construction costs. The Purchaser/ Agreement holders paid the Builder/ confirming party ₹ 1,00,000/- by way of advance towards sale price and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is hold by the Petitioner. And the entire savings amount, which is invested on this Flat and the impleading applicant has no further funding to pay the escalation charges to the Escrow account which is hold by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Impleading applicant has applied loan from bank for paying the escalation charges to the Petitioner for sanction the loan to the Impleading applicants. That as per the agreement, the impleading applicants are already have right over the flat. 34) It is stated that the applicants are necessary parties in the present application to decide the questions involved therein and they came to know of the instant petition only recently. 3. Heard Shri Chandrakant R.Patil, learned Counsel for Impleading Applicant and Shri Om Prakash, Learned Senior Counsel learned Counsel for Respondent/ Petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar.M, learned Counsel for Respondent/ Corporate Debtor. We have carefully perused the pleading of both the parties and extant provisions of the Code. 4. Shri Chandrakant.R.Patil, learned Counsel for Impleading Applicant. by pointing out various averments made in the Application, as briefly stated supra, has further submitted that App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Versus M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Per: Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J) 1. C.P.(IB) No.167/BB/2018 is filed by Phoenix ARC Private Limited (Petitioner/ Financial Creditor) U/ s 7 of the IBC, 2016 R/ w Rule 4 of the I B(AAA) Rules, 2016 by inter alia seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s.Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Limited ('Respondent/ Corporate Debtor') that it has committed a default for total outstanding amount of ₹ 42,80,92,640/- (Rupees Forty Two Crores Eighty Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Only). 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition, are as follows: (1) M/s.Phoenix Arc Private Limited (Trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 16-15 Scheme B) (Petitioner/ Financial Creditor/ Applicant) is incorporated on 02.03.2007 registered address at: 5th Floor, Dani Corporate Park 158, CST, Road. Mumbai. (2) M/s.Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Limited (Respondent/ Corporate Debtor) is incorporated on 21.04.2006, approached Karnataka Bank Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Assignor Bank ) for grant of a Loan amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B herein. As a result, the applicant acting in its capacity as trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 16-15 scheme B herein, stepped into the shoes of the Assignor Bank and became solely entitled to receive repayments and enforce payment of all debts under the Loan Agreement. (5) Subsequent to the assignment of the debt as per the Assignment Agreement dated 29.03.2016, the Corporate Debtor, in a grave financial situation, approached the applicant acting in its capacity as Trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 16-15 Scheme B herein, seeking to restructure their debt and also seeking additional funding from the applicant and accordingly agreed to recognize the assignment of the Assigned Debt and also agreed to restructure the said Assigned Debt. The Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor dated 04.05.2016, resolved and give consent for and accepting the terms of the Assignment of the debt to the applicant herein by the Assignor Bank. As per the terms of the restructuring agreed upon by the parties, the Corporate debtor sought additional funding of ₹ 5,00,00,000/-. The Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor dated 04.05.2016, resolved and gave consent for availing of a Term Loan of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is still pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. (9) The total amount due to the Applicant both for itself and in its capacity as Trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 16 -15 Scheme B along with interest, calculated up to 2nd of September, 2018 in ₹ 42,80,92,640/- being the cumulative claim for both the Assigned Debt and the New Loan along with further interest at contractual rate (interest at 14% p.a compounded monthly with Penal Interest at 4% p.a. on Assigned Debt and interest at 24% p.a. compounded monthly with penal interest at 6% p.a. on New Loan. 3. The Respondent/ Corporate Debtor has filed Statement of Objections dated 25.01.2019, by inter alia contending as follows: (1) It is alleged that there is distortion of facts apart from suppression of material facts and the Petition is not maintainable either in law or facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. (2) The Petitioner is an Asset Reconstruction Company, who took on assignment, a loan obtained by the Respondent from Karnataka Bank. The Karnataka Bank had sanctioned a total of ₹ 25 Crores as term loan. Though the Respondent had flagged several issues with the Karnataka Bank, who had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the petitioner been reasonable and rational in handling of the Escrow account, the present situation would have never arisen. The Respondent, even wrote to requesting them to remit the amounts of flat owners paid by them to escrow account towards statutory dues, so that work could go on peacefully. (6) Since the flat owners were coming forward to make payment of the balance (including the statutory dues), the Petitioner would have benefitted by receiving the amounts, which at the same time would have helped the Respondent to compete the project at the earliest. Even after escrow account was attached by the sale tax authorities, virtually freezing all the modes of receiving the payment by the Respondent further steps have been taken by the Respondent to complete the project and handover the flats to the owners and the same have begun to yield fruits, the Respondent has been now registered with RERA and a number is being assigned for the project. Further, the Respondent and its promoters gone a step further to get the attachment of the Escrow account removed by the Sales Tax Authorities, which once again proves the bonafide on the part of the Respondent in completing the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is due towards the Petitioner is ₹ 16,69,15,829/- + ₹ 2,31,70,963/- is about 19 Crores only, which certainly exclusive of the interest calculated on the said principal amount. (9) It is contended that the Respondent is not having any role in this matter, as the Assignment Agreement was made between two Financial Institutions, which was informed to the Respondent on 4 April 2016, by way of email first and later by a letter. It is denied the averments of petitioner that the Respondent made 'No Attempts to repay the money and stated the Respondent paid ₹ 3,97,94,703/- till March 2018 towards repayment of loan amount. Out of this ₹ 2,90,80,058/- went towards repayment of principle amount, ₹ 95,24,816/-went towards repayment of interest and ₹ 11,89,829/- went towards repayment penal rate of interest. All these repayment are towards repayment of principle and interest of additional loan of ₹ 5 Crore availed from Phoenix ARC. It was an established fact that Phoenix ARC appropriated the taxes amounts and special purpose fund amounts like BWSSB/ KEB amounts paid into Escrow Account towards repayment obligations of loan dues. (10) The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and withheld production of material documents therein. On this count alone, the above petition is liable to be dismissed forthwith. (13) It is also stated that the Respondent had sent letters to Hon'ble Prime Ministers' Office, the Finance Minister's office and also to Reserve Bank of India; when the Respondent's efforts, pleadings, requests to share the receivables and to remit the taxes amounts to Statutory Authorities fell on deaf ears from Petitioner's side. When all receivables from Project are going into Escrow Account and also when there is no other account to operate, in view of NPA status, it is impossible to run a company without funds, which are getting remitted into Escrow Account. The Respondent's request to remit the tax amounts to statutory authorities, to refund the specific purpose funds meant for BESCOM and BWSSB, is just practical. It is impractical to do restructuring without sharing of receivables and to appropriate entire receivables in Escrow Account towards repayment obligations. (14) The Respondent has been registered with the RERA Authority and has been given a regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke proper steps and allow for inflow of money. The Petitioner has been unable to show that the default within the meaning of Section 7 of the IBC was caused at the hands of the Respondent and as such has not made out a case for commencement of Insolvency/ resolution Proceedings and for admission of the present Petition. 4. Heard Shri 0m Prakash, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar.M, learned Counsel for Respondent. We have carefully perused the pleading of both the parties and extant provisions of the Code and law on the issue. 5. Shri 0m Prakash, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, while pointing out various averments made in the Company Petitioner, has further submitted that they have established that there is debt and default by producing substantial proof in that context and the application is filed in accordance with law. He has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: Innovative Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank Others (AIR 2017 SC 4084) Swiss Ribbons Private Limited Others Vs. Union of India Others. 6. Shri Ajay Kumar.M, learned Counsel for Respondent, while pointing out various averments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act ), calling upon them to repay the amount due, as on 15.02.2014, amounting to a sum of ₹ 19,32,25,988.22/- along with further interest and other charges, within sixty (60) days of their receipt of the notice. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the amount. Therefore, the Assignor bank assigned the debt arising under the Loan agreement to the applicant herein, namely Phoenix ARC Private Limited (in its capacity as Trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 16-15 scheme B) together with all the underlying securities, vide an Assignment agreement dated 29th March, 2016. 10. As stated supra, the assignment of the loan by the Bank to petitioner is not only accepted by the Respondent but it also obtained additional funding for ₹ 5,00,00,000/-. Accordingly new loan agreement dated 09.06.2016 was executed by the parties and also furnished personal guarantees for the loan. The Corporate debtor failed to pay the outstanding amount even after repeated demands made to the Corporate Debtor for total amount of ₹ 35,33,34,286/- towards the dues of the Assigned Debt as well as the Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the code, C.P. (IB)No.167/BB/2018 is hereby admitted by initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Limited (the Corporate Debtor ) with following consequential directions; (1) We hereby appointed Shri Guruprasad Makam with Registration No.IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00932/201718/11550 is hereby appointed as Interim Resolution Professional in respect of the Corporate Applicant to carry on the functions as per provisions of Code and various rules issued by IBBI from time to time. (2) The following moratorium is declared prohibiting all of the following, namely: a. the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; b. transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; c. Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Recons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
