IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
CP (IB) – 234(PB)/2019
Order Under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to
Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. Rita Malhotra and Ors. ..... Financial Creditor
Versus
M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office:
RZ-D-5, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi- 110045
CIN No.: U70109DL2006PTC151295 ..... Corporate Debtor
Order Pronounced On: 19.09.2023
CORAM:
CHIEF JUSTICE (RETD.) RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR
HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SHRI AVINASH K SRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
APPEARANCES:
For the Financial Creditor: Mr. Rajat Malhotra and Mr. Sunil
Malhotra, Advs.
For the Corporate Debtor: Mr. P. Nagesh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ranjana
Roy, Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Shikhar
Upadhyay, Advs.
ORDER
1. The present application was filed on 23.01.2019 before this
Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Insolvency and
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 1 of 18
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC,2016), r/w Rule 4 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2016, (Adjudicating Authority Rules), for
initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP),
declaring moratorium and for appointment of Interim
Resolution Professional (IRP), against the Corporate Debtor
(CD) viz. M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
2. The total amount claimed to be in default as per Part-IV of
the application is Rs. 3,60,612/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty
Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve).
3. The Corporate Debtor was Incorporated on 26/07/2006,
having CIN: U70109DL2006PTC151295, under the
Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in Real estate activities
including buying, selling, renting and operating of self-owned
or leased real estate such as apartment building and dwellings,
non-residential buildings, developing and sub-dividing real
estate into lots etc. The registered address of the Corporate
Debtor is at RZ-D-5, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi- 110045.
Therefore, this Bench has jurisdiction to deal with this
application. A copy of the master data of the Corporate Debtor
is attached at Page 1-2 of the application.
4. Facts of the Case and Submissions made by Ld. Counsel
for the Applicant
i. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor M/s Orris
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd floated a scheme to
develop/construct commercial building/complex at
Village Kherki, Daula, Sector 83, Gurgaon known as
Floreal Tower on land of M/s. Seriatim Land and
Housing (P) Limited.
ii. It is submitted that based on the representation made
by the representatives of the respondent with respect to
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 2 of 18
the Assured Return, the applicants submitted the
application in the prescribed form for allotment of Unit
in the said commercial project.
iii. It is submitted that the applicants vide application
dated 14.04.2010 applied for the allotment of Office
space/Retail Unit admeasuring 1071 Sq. ft. and paid a
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide cheque no. 747006 dated
14.04.2010, Rs. 5,00,000/- vide cheque no. 676398
dated 17.04.2010 and a further sum of Rs.22,98,000/-
vide cheque dated 871987 dated 24.04.2010.
iv. The applicants (M/s Rita Malhotra & Ms. Bina Chopra)
entered into an Agreement with the CD (the Developer)
& Land Owner (M/s Seriatim Land & Housing Private
Limited) vide agreement dated 24.04.2010 and were
allotted the office space admeasuring 1071 Sq. Ft. on
14th floor with Unit No.1414 @ Rs.2799.253 per Sq. Ft.
of the super area for a total consideration of Rs.
29,98,000 under the Assured Investment Return Plan
and for which purpose a separate Space Buyers
Agreement (“SBA”) was executed between the Corporate
Debtor and the Applicants on 26.04.2010.
v. The applicants have referred to para 4 & 5 of the
Agreement dated 24.04.2010 which read as under:
“4. The Developer shall pay the assured
investment return @ Rs. 60/- (Rupees Sixty only)
per sq.ft. per month of the super area of the
proposed office space on or before 7th of every
month.
5. That the Developer, upon completion of the
construction of the proposed building/complex
containing the said proposed office space shall
cause the proposed office space to be leased out
at a minimum rental of Rs. 60/per sq.ft. per
month. The buyer hereby duly authorizes the
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 3 of 18
Developer unconditionally to lease out the
proposed office space and only after the
Developer having duly informed the Buyer about
all terms and conditions of the lease as settled
with the lessee. The buyer under no
circumstances shall be entitled to lease the said
proposed office space and/or to otherwise deal
with the same directly without the consent in
writing of the developer. Subject to the
requirement of minimum price AND all necessary
terms of the lease being informed to the buyer by
the Developer AND the lease being to no detriment
to the buyer’s interest under this agreement or the
space buyers agreement, the terms and
conditions of lease negotiated by the Developer,
as aforesaid, shall be final and binding upon the
Buyer”
vi. It is submitted that the Respondent vide letter dated
09.06.2017 sent two copies of addendum to the Space
Buyer Agreement for the signature of the applicant with
respect to unit which has been changed to Unit No. 413
on 4th floor and the super area was changed to 1113
sq.ft. and the payment for the additional super area
was paid by the Buyer to the Developer, which was duly
acknowledged by the Respondent.
vii. That on 10.03.2017 Respondent issued a letter and
offered temporary possession to carry out the interior
work/fit out in office/retail unit no. 413 in the
commercial complex. Then on 25.04.2017 the applicant
replied to the letter dated 10.03.2017 stating that as
per the agreement it is the obligation of the Developer
to lease out the office space on its own cost and
expenses and to carry out the fittings and furnishing
work.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 4 of 18
viii. That the Respondent have breached the terms of the
Agreement and failed to make the payment of Rs.
10,33,685/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. for which
purpose a petition under section 7 of the IBC bearing
no. IB-640(PB)/2018 was filed on 01.06.2018 against
the Respondent Corporate Debtor.
ix. It is submitted that the applicant withdrew the
Insolvency Petition No. IB-640(PB)/2018 against the
Respondent which was allowed by NCLT on
10.07.2018, in view of the settlement dated 09.07.2018
arrived at between the parties in which the Respondent
Company paid the amount due from January 2017 to
June 2018, after deducting the TDS and further
handed over 12 post dated cheques for the period from
July 2018 to June 2019. Cheques for the month of July
2018 towards Assured Return was encashed but
subsequent cheques for the month of August,
September and October 2018 issued in pursuance to
the deed of settlement for Rs. 1,80,306 in favour of
applicants were dishonoured by the bank of
Respondent Company with Remarks “payment stopped
by drawer”.
x. It is submitted that subsequent to filing of this
application no. CP(IB)-234(PB)/2019 u/s 7 of IBC on
23.01.2019 before NCLT, a 2nd Settlement Deed dated
06.03.2019 was executed between the applicant FC &
the CD. The CD paid an amount of Rs. 4,30,714 to the
FC under the settlement deed towards the full and final
settlement. Further fresh cheques till June 2019 were
issued by the CD and NCLT vide order dated
07.03.2019 allowed the withdrawal of petition bearing
CP(IB)- 234(PB)/2019.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 5 of 18
xi. The applicant FC on 29.11.2019 sent a notice to CD
demanding payment of Rs.1,38,225/- for the period
from July, 2019 to September, 2019 along with interest
@ 15% and asked the CD to make payment of monthly
Assured Return till the unit is leased out by the CD.
Vide order dated 10.12.2019 NCLT allowed the Revival
Application filed on 29.11.2019 and the CP(IB)-
234(PB)/2019 for a default of Rs. 3,60,612/-was
revived.
5. Submissions of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the
Corporate Debtor are:
i. That the present application was filed in the year 2019
and as per the amended section 7 of the IBC, an
application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution
process by financial creditor who are allottees under a
real estate project shall be filed jointly by not less than
one hundred of such allottees under the same real estate
project or not less than 10% of the total number of such
allottees under the same real estate project whichever is
less.
ii. That in the case at hand the alleged grievance of the
applicant is in respect of Unit No. 413 in the Floreal Tower
real estate project of the Respondent Company and in fact
there are 504 no. of units in the Floreal Tower Real estate
project.
iii. The captioned petition is filed with respect to the scheme
of respondent for Assured Returns in respect of the real
estate unit allotments until leasing out of the said units or
until 36 months after the date of completion of the
building, whichever is earlier. There are 366 no. of
allottees of the Respondent under the Assured Returns
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 6 of 18
scheme/class of creditors and therefore the applicants
who are joint allottees of one single unit are nothing but a
part of Assured Returns class of creditors of respondent
and do not form either one hundred numbers of such
class of creditors or more than ten percent of the total
number of such class of creditors.
iv. The applicants never modified their petition within the 30
days’ time frame given under the relevant provision of
amended Section 7 of IBC and have insisted on contesting
their petition in its original form. The said period of 2
months expired in March, 2021.
v. The applicants entered into Agreement dated 24.04.2010
and the Space Buyers agreement dated 26.04.2010 with
the Respondent and it was mutually agreed between the
parties that the respondent will pay monthly assured
return to the applicants upto the first 36 months after the
completion of building or till the date the office space is
put on lease, whichever is earlier. The construction of the
building for Floreal Tower Project was completed by
December 2013 and thereafter, the occupation certificate
for the Floreal Tower of the Respondent was received on
16.08.2017 and hence in terms of the agreement, the
obligation of the Respondent extends maximum upto 36
months from the date of completion of the building, which
comes out to be 16.07.2020. Relevant extracts of the
Agreement dated 24.04.2010 read as under:
“2. Having received all consideration in relation to
the afore-detailed office space equating Rs.
29,98,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Ninety
Eight Thousand Only), as agreed under the
Assured Investment Return Plan, the Developer
shall give to the Buyer an investment @ Rs. 60/-
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 7 of 18
per sq.ft. per month i.e Rs. 64,260/- (Rupees Sixty
Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Only) with
effect from 1st May, 2010 on or before 7th day of
every month for which it is due upto the first 36
months after completion of building or till the date
the said office space is put on lease, whichever is
earlier. Performance of the said obligation by the
Developer (which performance is not contingent on
whatsoever else contained in this Agreement
and/or under the Space Buyers Agreement) is
hereby wholly and unconditionally confirmed by
the Land Owner, who (in case of partial or complete
failure on part of the Developer) agrees to fulfill the
said obligation of the Developer as a guarantor and
in the same manner as detailed above:
vi. That there is no amount due towards the Applicants from
the Respondent in terms of Agreement dated 24.04.2010
and further the Applicants vide their counter affidavit
have admitted that the Respondent has already paid the
due amount till the period of June, 2019. Further, vide
the additional affidavit dated 01.04.2021 as filed by the
Respondent, it was highlighted that the Respondent has
handed over demand drafts totaling to a sum of Rs.
8,03,029/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Twenty-
Nine Only) which is the amount payable till the month of
July 2020.
vii. That despite receiving the full amount, the applicants
have unlawfully claimed that the obligation of the
Respondent is continuing and the applicants have
contradicted their own statement by virtue of para 3 of the
counter affidavit dated 06.07.2021 filed on their behalf,
wherein it has been explicitly admitted by the applicants
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 8 of 18
that the Respondent’s obligation in respect of the monthly
assured returns is only till 3 years after the date of
completion or till leasing out of the unit, whichever is
earlier.
viii. That the Respondent has admittedly paid the applicants
full and final amount towards the monthly assured
returns till the month of July 2020 and the same has
been accepted by the applicants also and therefore the
respondent is now discharged from the obligations under
the agreement and no further amount can be claimed as
debt from the Respondent.
ix. That the present petition is filed to misuse the provisions
of the IBC, 2016 and to coerce the Respondent to make
illegitimate payments and in fact the Respondent has paid
more than the amount claimed by the Applicants in terms
of agreement dated 24.04.2010.
x. That it is a settled position in law that IBC is not a
recovery legislation, but is rather a beneficial legislation
intended to be invoked to ensure the continuity of
business companies and not to satisfy the selfish interest
of claimant.
xi. That the Applicants had earlier also filed a company
petition bearing CP(IB) No. 640 of 2018 under Section 7 of
the IBC alleging default on the part of the Respondent in
payment of monthly assured returns till the month of
June 2018. However, a settlement deed dated 09.07.2018
was executed between the parties and the matter was
settled and withdrawn before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
xii. The present petition bearing CP(IB) No. 234/2019 was
also withdrawn by the applicants upon execution of deed
of settlement dated 06.03.2019. However, the petition as
revived vide order dated 10.12.2019.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 9 of 18
xiii. That the respondent handed over demand drafts totaling
an amount of more than Rs. 8 lakhs to the Applicants,
which have been duly received by the Applicants.
However, till date, the same have not been encashed by
the Applicants to extort more money from the
respondents.
xiv. The Applicants have received more amount than what was
actually claimed in the captioned petition and such
conduct evidently shows that the Applicants are nothing
but speculative investors as recognized by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and
Infrastructure Limited and Anr. V. Union of India (Writ
Petition(C) No. 43/2019 dated 9th August, 2019.
6. Submissions made in Rejoinder by the Ld. Counsel
appearing for the Financial Creditor are:
i. It is specifically denied that the applicants are
encumbered by the threshold for filing the petition, it is
submitted that the present petition is maintainable de
hors the allotment as the cause for the same arises due to
default under agreement dated 24.04.2010 and not the
terms of allotment. This issue has already been
considered and set to rest by the Hon’ble NCLAT in the
case of “Nikhil Mehta and Sons v. AMR Infrastrucutre Ltd.,
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 07 of 2017 wherein the
Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal was considering the
maintainability of a petition filed by the recipient under
an identical assured return investment scheme and the
Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the scheme was such
that the debt therein qualified as a financial debt and
default in view thereof permitted the applicants to present
the petition under Section 7.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 10 of 18
ii. It is submitted the present petition has not been filed for
reasons of the applicants being allottees but due to a
default under an independent agreement dated
24.04.2010 guaranteeing monthly assured investment
return and thus the submission that there are 366 such
allottees is irrelevant and made simply to confuse the
issue and therefore the agreement for monthly assured
investment return is distinct from and its cause for filing
of this petition is without reference to the petitioners
status as allottees in terms of the Code. Therefore, the
petition is maintainable without any modification.
iii. It is specifically denied that the Floreal Tower Project was
completed by December 2013 and that the Occupation
Certificate was received in 2017 are irrelevant in view of
the specific letter from DCTP, Haryana dated 12.12.2019
which states that the Completion Certificate has not yet
been granted, the liability in terms of Agreement dated
24.04.2010 thus continues, further the Occupation
Certificate has not been placed on record.
iv. It is a matter of fact that no completion certificate has
been issued for the Project Floreal Tower to the contrary
the land holding company for the project has applied for a
renewal of the license no. 260 of 2007 and which renewal
has been granted vide letter dated 12.12.2019 by DTCP,
Haryana.
v. It is submitted that the Demand Drafts as mentioned by
the CD in its reply were never encashed and the
respondents were specifically called upon to collect the
same on multiple occasions. By handing over the DDs the
respondent attempted to get out from the Agreement
Dated 24.04.2010 which is not acceptable to the
applicants.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 11 of 18
7. The Financial Creditor has placed the following
documents on record:
i. Copy of Space Buyer Agreement dated 26.04.2010 at page
28-73 of application.
ii. Copy of Agreement dated 24.04.2010 at page 74-83 of the
application.
iii. Copy of Agreement dated 10.02.2017 between
Respondent, applicants and M/s Seritiam Land and
Housing(P) Limited at page 84-90 of the application.
iv. Copy of Settlement Deed dated 09.07.2018 at page 121-
127 of the application.
8. The Corporate Debtor has placed the following
documents on record:
i. Copy of Settlement Deed dated 06.03.2019 at Annexure
R3 of the Reply.
ii. Copy of additional affidavit dated 01.04.2021
iii. Copy of Occupation Certificate dated 16.08.2017 in the
captioned matter for the project Floreal Tower at page 1-2
of documents as filed with this Tribunal on 24.11.2022.
9. Analysis and Findings
i. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicants and
respondent and perused the documents submitted by them.
Considering the submissions made and documents placed on
record, we find that the present application was filed on
23.01.2019 i.e before the coming of IBC Amendment Act of
2020 which prescribes that for financial creditors, referred to
in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (6A) of section 21 and for
financial creditors who are allottees under a real estate
project, an application for initiating corporate insolvency
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 12 of 18
resolution process against the corporate debtor shall be filed
jointly by not less than one hundred such creditors in the
same class or not less than ten per cent of the total number
of creditors in the same class, whichever is less. Further
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Manish
Kumar v. Union of India (2021 SCC Online SC 30) dated
19.01.2021 gave 2 months’ time to the applicants of various
pending petitions under section 7 for modifying their petition
in terms of the threshold limit. The relevant extract of the
judgement is extracted as under:
“398. We uphold the impugned amendments.
However, this is subject to the following directions,
which we issue under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India:
i. If any of the petitioners move applications in
respect of same default, as alleged in their
applications, within a period of two months
from today, also compliant with either first or
second proviso under Section 7(1), as the
case may be, then, they will be exempted
from the requirement of payment of court
fees, in the manner, which we have detailed
in the paragraph just herein before”
ii. Applicants in their rejoinder have specifically denied that
they are not covered by the threshold for filing the petition as
the cause of default in the present case arises due to default
under agreement dated 24.04.2010 and not in terms of
allotment, applicants have also relied upon the judgement of
Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of “Nikhil Mehta and Sons v. AMR
Infrastructure Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 07 of 2017”
to contend that in that case the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal
was considering the maintainability of a petition filed by
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 13 of 18
recipient under an identical assured return investment
scheme and the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the
scheme was such that the debt therein qualified as a
financial debt and default and in view thereof permitted the
applicants to present the petition under Section 7.
iii. We observe that Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of “Nikhil Mehta
and Sons v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd” held that the amount
invested by applicants in that case comes within the
meaning of financial debt as defined in Section 5(8)(f) and
that the applicants are financial creditors.
iv. The judgement of Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of “Nikhil Mehta
and Sons v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd” was delivered on
21.07.2017 i.e. before coming of the IBC Amendment Act of
2020, further Hon’ble NCLAT in its judgement did not
observe that Assured Returns class of creditors in a
particular project do not come under the definition of
allotees. In the present case the applicants are allotted Unit
No. 413 in the Floreal Towers project.
v. We now refer to the definitions of allottee, apartment and
building from the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (“RERA”) which read as under:
(d) “allottee” in relation to a real estate project,
means the person to whom a plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, has been allotted,
sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or
otherwise transferred by the promoter, and
includes the person who subsequently acquires the
said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise
but does not include a person to whom such plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, is given
on rent.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 14 of 18
(e) “apartment” whether called block, chamber,
dwelling unit, flat, office, showroom, shop, godown,
premises, suit, tenement, unit or by any other
name, means a separate and self-contained part of
any immovable property, including one or more
rooms or enclosed spaces, located on one or more
floors or any part thereof, in a building or on a plot
of land, used or intended to be used for any
residential or commercial use such as residence,
office, shop, showroom or godown or for carrying
on any business, occupation, profession or trade, or
for any other type of use ancillary to the purpose
specified.
(j) “building” includes any structure or erection or
part of a structure which is intended to be used for
residential, commercial or for the purpose of any
business, occupation, profession or trade, or for
any other related purposes;
vi. Conjoint reading of the above provisions depicts that even a
commercial space or unit allotted to Assured Return class of
creditors in a project, as in the present case, is covered in
the ambit of “allottee” as they are allotted a specific unit of a
building and therefore they also need to satisfy the threshold
for filing a section 7 petition.
vii. In the instant case the application is filed by 2 joint allottees
of Unit No 413 in the Floreal Tower real estate project of the
Corporate Debtor. In the additional affidavit dated
01.04.2021 filed by the Corporate Debtor, the total no. of
allotted units in the Floreal Tower is 504 and 366 no. of
allottees of the Respondent are under the Assured Returns
scheme/class of creditors. Therefore, the applicants do not
satisfy the threshold for filing a section 7 petition.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 15 of 18
viii. Further in terms of Agreement dated 24.04.2010 as entered
into between the parties, the obligation of developer to pay
assured investment return @ Rs. 60/- per sq.ft per month
i.e. Rs. 64,260/- is to be paid with effect from 1st May, 2010
on or before 7th day of every month for which it is due upto
the first 36 months after completion of the building or till
date the said office space is put on lease, whichever is
earlier.
ix. The Applicants in their rejoinder has stated that no
completion certificate has been issued for the project Floreal
Tower, to the contrary the land holding company for the
project has applied for a renewal of license no. 260 of 2007
and which renewal has been granted vide letter dated
12.12.2019 by DTCP, Haryana. However to substantiate this
very fact, no document has been placed on record before us.
x. The Respondent, Company on the other hand has attached
occupation certificate dated 16.08.2017 for the project as
received from Director, Town & Country Planning
Department, Haryana as a part of documents filed with this
tribunal on 24.11.2022. Therefore, the 3-year period for the
purpose of paying assured return in terms of the occupation
certificate ends on 16.08.2020. We also take note of the fact
that earlier on two occasions also settlement deed had been
entered into between the parties for settling the default in
payment of the assured return.
xi. Further in additional affidavit dated 01.04.2021 as filed by
the respondent, the respondent has issued demand drafts
bearing no. 509804 amounting to Rs. 6,15,602/- in favour of
Ms. Rita Malhotra and Demand Draft bearing no. 509805 in
favour of Ms. Bina Chopra amounting to Rs. 1,87,424/- in
lieu of full and final payment of the assured return towards
the allotted unit.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 16 of 18
xii. We now rely upon judgement of Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter
of Bhagwandas K. Bhattad v. R.M. Bhuther and Company Ltd
& Anr (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 494 of 2023
dated 18.05.2023 where in para 8 and 9 was held as under:
8.It is to be noted that in view of the Consent Terms
between the parties, the appellant has deposited in
the Court, the amount of Rs 1,71,80,263/- as noted
above.
9. We are of the view that in the ends of justice be
served in directing that the said amount deposited
in the court is paid to the Financial Creditor. The
Principal Amount + Interest having been paid, we
see no purpose in continuing the CIRP against the
Corporate Debtor. In so far as the submission of the
Learned Counsel for the Financial Creditor that as
per Consent Terms, the entire amount of Concerned
Terms has not been paid, the financial creditor is at
liberty to take such proceedings as permissible in
law to recover the balance amount.
xiii. We are of the view that in the present case the applicants are
already having demands drafts of amount exceeding the
defaulted amount in this petition and moreover IBC cannot
be used as a tool for recovery; the settlement has been
arrived between the parties. The amount has been paid in
excess of the default amount and Ld. Counsel for the
applicant has also acknowledged the receipt of above stated
demand drafts.
xiv. For the reasons recorded above, we are inclined to dismiss
CP(IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019.
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 17 of 18
10. Order
In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is, hereby
ordered as follows: -
i. The Application bearing C.P. (IB) – 234 (PB)/2019 filed by the
Rita Malhotra and Ors, under section 7 of the Code read with
rule 4(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to
Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP against
M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., is hereby dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
iii. File be consigned to records
iv. A certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon
compliance with all requisite formalities.
-sd-
RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR
(PRESIDENT)
-sd-
AVINASH K. SRIVASTAVA
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
CP (IB)- 234(PB)/ 2019 Page 18 of 18
