jitender jain recent case laws on indian insolvency and bankruptcy code 2016

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016Discussion on Recent Major Case Laws

Jitender JainAdvocate & Insolvency Professional

Mumbai

2Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 © 2017 Jitender Jain, Arcindo Law, Advocates

Legal Framework for Insolvency in India1. The Companies Act 2013 (CA2013) ‐ For companies in the following cases:(a) if the company has, by special resolution, resolved that the company be woundup by the Tribunal;(b) if the company has acted against the interests of the sovereignty and integrityof India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, publicorder, decency or morality;(c) if on an application made by the Registrar or any other person authorised by theCentral Government by notification under this Act, the Tribunal is of the opinionthat the affairs of the company have been conducted in a fraudulent manner or thecompany was formed for fraudulent and unlawful purpose or the personsconcerned in the formation or management of its affairs have been guilty of fraud,misfeasance or misconduct in connection therewith and that it is proper that thecompany be wound up;(d) if the company has made a default in filing with the Registrar its financialstatements or annual returns for immediately preceding five consecutive financialyears; or(e) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the companyshould be wound up.


Legal Framework for Insolvency in India (Cont.)

2. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Insolvency Code)‐ For Corporate Persons, Individuals and partnership firms in

case they are unable to pay debts; and‐ Voluntary winding‐up of Corporate Persons.

3. Notably, voluntary winding‐up of companies is covered bothunder Insolvency Code and CA2013.

4. More importantly, now, CA2013 has no provision for winding upof the company when it is unable to pay its debts.

5. IBC has only two types of creditors, i.e., Financial Creditor (FC)and Operational Creditor (OC). Thus, no remedy, either underCA2013 or Insolvency Code, is available to a creditor (who isneither FC nor OC) against the corporate debtor (CD)?



6. Who can file winding‐up petition under Insolvency Code?(a) Operational creditor for operational debt;(b) Financial creditor for financial debt; and(c) Corporate Debtor itself for default of any debt.

7. Who can file winding‐up petition under the CA2013?As per section 272 of CA2013, a petition to NCLT for the winding up of acompany shall be presented by –(a) the company itself;(b) any contributory or contributories;(c) all or any of the persons specified in clauses (a) and (b);(d) the Registrar, after sanction of central government, in cases falling u/s271(b) or 271(c) or 271(d;(e) any person authorised by the Central Government in that behalf; or(f) in a case falling under clause (b) of section 271, by the Central Governmentor a State Government.”



Case Law – Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) and others V/s AMRInfrastructure Ltd. (NCLT Delhi)‐ The applicants booked units in real estate projects of CD whereinCD agreed that assured return will be payable to applicants in caseof delay in possession.‐ CD paid assured return for some time and thereafter stoppedpayment because of financial problems.‐ Multiple winding‐up petitions were filed against CD by various unitholders u/s 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 which were alreadyadmitted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.‐ Applicants filed this application claiming themselves to be FC.NCLT –(a) The applicants were not FC and, thus, the application wasdismissed.(b) The remedy of the applicants may lie elsewhere. [Para 15]



Case Law – Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) andothers V/s AMR Infrastructure Ltd. (Cont.)

Question – What remedy is available to creditorslike the applicants assuming CD is unable to payits debt?

Suggested Answer – Amendment to section 272of the Companies Act 2013 or Insolvency Code!!


Application by Operational Creditor under Insolvency Code

1. The proceedings under Insolvency Code are in nature of summary proceedingsand, thus, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) will not decide the matter on meritsby recording evidence, etc., i.e., adjudication of dispute between the parties, ifany.

2. Operational debt means a claim in respect of the provision of goods orservices including employment or a debt in respect of the repayment of duesarising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the CentralGovernment, any State Government or any local authority. [Section 5(21) ofInsolvency Code]

3. Dispute ‐ Section 5(6) of Insolvency CodeDispute" includes a suit or arbitration proceedings relating to:(a) the existence of the amount of debt;(b) the quality of goods or service; or(c) the breach of a representation or warranty.


Application by Operational Creditor under Insolvency Code (Cont.)

4. OC may, on occurrence of default deliver demand notice of: (i)unpaid operational debt; or (b) copy of invoice, demandingpayment of amount involved in default in prescribed manner.[Section 8(1)]

5. CD shall, within 10 days of receipt of such notice, bring into noticeof OC: (i) existence of dispute, if any, and record of the pendencyof the suit or arbitration in relation to such dispute; (ii) payment ofoperation debt along with proof of payment. [Section 8(2)]

6. NCLT shall, within 14 days of receipt of the application, by an orderadmit the application if, inter alia, (i) no notice of dispute has beenreceived by the OC, or (ii) there is no record of dispute in theinformation utility. [Section 9(5)(d)]



Case Study ‐ What is Dispute?

1. VDS Plastic Private Limited V/s Pal Mohan Electronics Pvt. Ltd.– NCLT Delhi

‐ OC filed application for recovery of dues claiming that there isno pending suit or arbitration at the time of issue of notice.Thus, there is no dispute as per Insolvency Code.

‐ CD showed proofs that CD disputed the debt from time to timethough no arbitration or suit is pending.

‐ CD submitted that definition of Dispute is inclusive and suit orarbitration are not conclusive factor to determine if a Disputeexists.

NCLT ‐ The definition of dispute is not limited to prior suit orarbitration. [Para 11]




2. Essar Projects India Limited V/s MCL Global Steel Pvt. Ltd.– NCLT Mumbai

‐ OC issued notice u/s 8 for outstanding amount withinterest.

‐ CD raised various dispute after receipt of notice u/s 8 ofInsolvency Code.

‐ There was no pending arbitration or suit.

NCLT – As per section 5(6) read with section 8(2)(a), it isevident that ‘dispute in existence’ means and includes raisingdispute in court of law or arbitral tribunal before receipt ofnotice u/s 8 of Insolvency Code. [Para 8]




3. DF Deutsche Forfait AG and other V/s Uttam Galva SteelLtd. – NCLT Mumbai

‐ Summary proceedings under Insolvency Code cannotmean that NCLT can simply pass matter to other forum ifanswers to all issues are available on the basis of materialplaced and as to legal issues, when no evidence isrequired to decide those issues. [Para 13]

‐ NCLT observed that “No doubt it is true that word‘includes’ normally considered as exhaustive, but thereare situations to read ‘includes’ as ‘means’ to enable thecourts to achieve the purpose of the legislation”. [Para23]




3. DF Deutsche Forfait AG and other V/s Uttam Galva Steel Ltd. – NCLTMumbai (Cont.)

‐ “If reply is given denying the claim despite default occurrence isclear, does it mean that no application can be filed by any OC eventhough the OC makes the case of default occurrence? If this scenarioemerges, then it will be nothing but throwing this law into dustbin”.[Para 23]

‐ Suit or arbitration must be pending before the issue of notice u/s 8of Insolvency Code. Filing of suit / arbitration after issue of notice u/s8 is irrelevant. [Para 38]

NCLT ‐ Dispute is qualified as the dispute pending in a suit or arbitrationbefore issue of notice u/s 8 and not otherwise. [Para 33].



Case Study ‐ What is “Dispute”?

4. Annapurna Infrastructure Private Limited & Others V/s Soil InfraResources Ltd. – NCLT Delhi

‐ OC and CD had disputes under the lease deed.‐ Sole arbitrator appointed by the Hon’ble High Court pronounced

his award in favour of the applicants.‐ CD filed application u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

1996 (Arbitration Act) to challenge award that was dismissed on19 December 2016.

‐ OC issued demand notice u/s 8 of Insolvency Code on 13 January2017 and CD disputed that same on 27 January 2017 and alsostated that an appeal u/s 37 of Arbitration Act has been filed.

‐ OC also filed the proceedings for execution of arbitration awardbefore the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.




4. Annapurna Infrastructure Private Limited & Others V/s SoilInfra Resources Ltd. – NCLT Delhi (Cont.)

‐ OC submitted that once award is pronounced, there is nopending arbitration proceedings u/s 32 of Arbitration Act.

‐ OC further submitted that under Insolvency Code, pendency ofexecution proceedings under the Arbitration Act is not a bar toinitiate the actions u/s 9 of Insolvency Code.

‐ CD submitted that ‘rent’ is not Operational Debt.‐ CD further submitted that arbitration award has, pending

appeal, not recached its finality and, thus, the dispute exists.




4. Annapurna Infrastructure Private Limited & Others V/s Soil InfraResources Ltd. – NCLT Delhi (Cont.)

NCLT Conclusion –(a) The definition of dispute is not exhaustive but is, in fact, illustrative.(b) CD would be well within his rights to reject the demand on

sustainable grounds including: (i) goods/services were not suppliedat all, or (ii) supply was far from satisfactory. .

(c) The arbitration award is not final as the appeal is pending. Thus,dispute exists.

(d) By filing the proceedings for execution of award, OC has alreadyavailed one effective remedy and second remedy under theInsolvency Code is against the principles of judicial administration.Second remedy would promote forum shopping which is against thelaw. [Also refer Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd on second remedy.]


Time Limits prescribed under Insolvency CodeJK Jute Mills Company Ltd V/s M/s Surendra Trading Company –NCLAT – Company appeal arising out of order dated 09 March2017 of NCLT, Allahabad‐ NCLT delayed the proceedings for admitting/rejecting

application and when objected by CD, NCLT held that u/r 11 ofNCLT Rules 2016, NCLT has inherent power to providesubstantial justice.

‐ Thus, this appeal on the question ‘Whether the time limitprescribed under the Insolvency Code for (i) admitting /rejecting a petition, or (ii) initiation of insolvency resolutionprocess, is mandatory?’

NCLT Conclusion –(a) It is not mandatory for OC to propose resolution professional

to act as an interim resolution professional. [Para 47]


Time Limits prescribed under Insolvency CodeJK Jute Mills Company Ltd V/s M/s Surendra Trading Company –NCLAT (Cont.)

(b) NCLT has different roles and its role u/s 7(4), 9(5) and 10(4) ofInsolvency Code is administrative in nature. [Para 38]

(c) Provisions contained u/s 7(4), 9(5) and 10(4) of Insolvency Codelike Order VIII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code being procedural innature cannot be a mandate of law. [Para 41]

(d) The objective behind such provisions is to prevent the delay inhearing the disposal of the cases. NCLT cannot ignore theprovisions. But in appropriate cases, for the reasons to berecorded in writing, it can admit or reject the application after theperiod prescribed under sections 7, 9 or 10 of Insolvency Code.[Para 42]


Time Limits prescribed under Insolvency CodeJK Jute Mills Company Ltd V/s M/s Surendra Trading Company – NCLAT– (Cont.)(e) NCLAT cited various judgment of the Supreme court wherein it washeld that “Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not anobstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are thehandmaid and the not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in theadministration of justice”.(f) 14 days period granted to NCLT under the provisions of InsolvencyCode cannot be counted from the filing of the application but from thedate on which such application is presented before NCLT, i.e., the date onwhich it is listed for admission / order. [Para 39](g) Time granted u/s 12 of Insolvency Code is mandatory. [Para 46]

Question – Whether NCLAT has amended s.64 to insert ‘except in case of7(4), 9(5) and 10(4) of Insolvency Code’ in s.64 of Insolvency Code?



Whether notice u/s 8 is mandatory?

Prideco Commercial Projects Pvt Ltd. V/s Era InfraEngineering Ltd. – NCLT Delhi‐ CD issued cheques that were dishonored.‐ OC issued notice u/s 271 of Companies Act 2013 on 08

January 2017.‐ No reply to notice or dispute as to debt.‐ OC filed application on 01 March 2017.

NCLT – Admitted as the requirement of section 9 aresubstantially fulfilled.



Whether notice u/s 8 is mandatory?

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. V/s Prideco Commercial Projects Pvt Ltd. –Appeal before NCLAT Delhi‐ CD challenged the order of NCLT on ground that no notice u/s 8 of

Insolvency Code was issued.‐ OC submitted that notice issued u/s 271 of Companies Act 2013

should be treated to be a notice for this purpose.

NCLAT Order – Notice u/s 8 is mandatory and, thus, order of NCLT wasset aside.

Question – Why NCLAT, in exercise of its power u/r 11 of NCLAT Rules2016, not waived the requirement of notice (as it mentioned in ‘JK JuteMills Company Ltd’) specially when the debt and default were admitted?



Case Study – Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963

1. Deem Roll‐Tech Limited V/s R. L. Steel and Energy Ltd. – NCLTDelhi

‐ OC filed summary suit u/o 37 of Civil Procedure Code and ex‐parte decree was passed in favour of OC on 19 October 2016.

‐ OC issued demand notice u/s 8 of Insolvency Code on 15February 2017 and application u/s 9 on 27 February 2017.

‐ CD did not appear and NCLT proceeded ex‐parte.‐ NCLT noted that invoices were of 2011.‐ NCLT further observed that neither of the closing balance were

confirmed by CD nor any other acknowledgment issued by CDwas produced by OC.



Case Study – Applicability of Limitation Act, 19631. Deem Roll‐Tech Limited V/s R. L. Steel and Energy Ltd. – NCLT

Delhi (Cont.)NCLT Conclusion –(a) The provisions of section 433 of the CA2013 are applicable to

Insolvency Code and, thus, the provisions of the Limitation Act1963 are applicable to Insolvency Code.

(b) As the debt is time barred under the Limitation Act, theproceedings under Insolvency Code are not maintainable.

Question – Whether NCLT should re‐examine the order of judgebecause the existence of debt due to OC is proved on the basis ofan order of a court that has adjudicated upon the non‐payment ofa debt? [Regulation 7(2)(b)(iii)]

.




2. Speculum Plast Private Limited V/s PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. – NCLTDelhi

‐ OC filed application for recovery of dues claiming that the debtis admitted and CD had issued cheques dated between 31January 2014 to 07 February 2014 towards payment.

‐ The application was filed on 29 March 2017, i.e., aftercompleting the limitation period of three years.

NCLT ‐ The debt is time barred and, thus, the proceedings underInsolvency Code are not maintainable. .




3. Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd V/s Neelkanth Township andConstructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai

‐ FC filed application for recovery of debentures that became duefor redemption as far as in 2011, 2012 and 2013 whichaccording to CD was time barred.

‐ CD, from time to time, admitted the default in its financialstatements.

NCLT ‐ The debt is not time barred because such admission in thefinancial statements gives fresh limitation period as per section 18of the Limitation Act 1963. .


Application by Financial Creditor under Insolvency Code

1. The Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee

(a) Extract from Executive Summary (Page 10)‘Difficulties of the present arrangements ‐ The limited liabilitycompany is a contract between equity and debt. As long as debtobligations are met, equity owners have complete control, andcreditors have no say in how the business is run. When default takesplace, control is supposed to transfer to the creditors; equity ownershave no say.’

(b) Extract from Para 5.2.1 (Page 77)‘Here, the Code differentiates between financial creditors andoperational creditors. Financial creditors are those whoserelationship with the entity is a pure financial contract, such as aloan or a debt security. Operational creditors are those whose liabilityfrom the entity comes from a transaction on operations.’


Application by Financial Creditor under Insolvency Code (Cont.)

(c) Extract from Para 4.3.3 (Page 54)

“Liabilities fall into two broad sets: liabilities based onfinancial contracts, and liabilities based on operationalcontracts. Financial contracts involve an exchange of fundsbetween the entity and a counterparty which is a financialfirm or intermediary. This can cover a broad array of typesof liabilities: loan contracts secured by physical assets thatcan be centrally registered; loan contracts secured byfloating charge on operational cash flows; loan contractsthat are unsecured; debt securities that are secured byphysical assets, cash flow or are unsecured.”



2. Definition of Financial Debt ‐ As per sec. 4(8) "financial debt"means adebt alongwith interest, if any, which is disbursed against theconsideration for the time value of money and includes items specified in(a) to (i). Thus, the definition has two limbs, i.e., (i) means; and (ii)includes.

3. NCLT Delhi in matter of Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) and others V/sAMR Infrastructure Ltd.(a) The opening words of the definition clause would indicate that afinancial debt is a debt along with interest which is disbursed against theconsideration for the time value of money and it may include any of theevents enumerated in sub‐clauses (a) to (i). Therefore, the first essentialrequirement of financial debt has to be met viz. that the debt isdisbursed against the consideration of time value of money and whichmay include the events enumerated in various sub‐clauses. [Para 12 onpage 7]



3. NCLT Delhi in matter of Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) andothers V/s AMR Infrastructure Ltd. (Cont.)

(b) The key feature of financial transaction as postulated bysection 5(8) is its consideration for time value of money. Inother words, the legislature has included such financialtransactions in the definition of ‘financial debt’ which areusually for a sum of money received today to be paid for overa period of time in a single or series of payments in future. Itmay also be a sum of money invested today to be repaid overa period of time in a single or series of instalments to be paidin future. [Para 12 on page 8]



3. NCLT Delhi in matter of Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF)and others V/s AMR Infrastructure Ltd. (Cont.)

(c) It is significant to note that in order to satisfy therequirement of this provision, the financialtransaction should be in nature of debt and no equityhas been implied by the opening words of section5(8) of IBC. It is true that there are complex financialinstruments which may not provide a happy situationto decipher the true nature and meaning of thetransaction. [Para 12]



4. Perot Systems TSI (India) Limited V/s Dy. CIT, Circle – 14(1), NewDelhi [ITA No. 2320, 2321 and 2322/Delhi/2008, ITAT Delhi Bench ‘F’,New Delhi] – The observation of Tax Department on Debt/Equity[Para 5(iii) on page 2]The risk / reward matric of a loan transaction and that of equitysubscription is totally different:(i) In case of a loan, the return of the lender can never exceed a pre‐determined rate and it is not entitled to any share in profits of theborrower.(ii) In case of equity participation, the stake holder is entitled to sharein the profits which can be much higher as compared to the interest.(iii) In addition to the regular return, the shareholders can also gain byway of appreciation in value of shares.(iv) Besides the financial returns, the shareholders also gets votingrights to exercise management control over the company.



5. Soma Textile & Industries Limited V/s Add/ CIT, Range – 8,Ahmedabad [ITA No. 262 (Ahd.) of 2012] – The observations on QuasiCapital(i) The expression ‘quasi capital’, in our humble understanding, is relevantfrom the point of view of highlighting that a quasi‐capital loan or advanceis not a routine loan transaction simplicitor. The substantive reward forsuch a loan transaction is not interest but opportunity to own capital. Asa corollary to this position, in the cases of quasi capital loans or advances,the comparison of the quasi capital loans is not with the commercialborrowings but with the loans or advances which are given in the sameor similar situations. [Para 9 on page 5](ii) The reward for time value of money in these cases was opportunityto subscribe to the capital, unlike in a normal loan transaction wherereward is interest, which is measured as a percentage of the moneyloaned or advanced. [Para 9 on page 5/6]



QUESTIONS:1. Whether unredeemed preference shares is a financial debt?2. Whether External Commercial Borrowings taken in the form

of redeemable preference shares is a financial debt?3. Whether Foreign Currency Convertible Bond (FCCB) is

financial debt?4. Whether zero percent loan is a financial debt?5. Whether optionally convertible debenture is financial debt?6. Whether FC can start proceedings under Insolvency Code

pending dispute?7. Whether a shareholder can start proceedings under

Insolvency Code for his financial debt or operational debt?



1. Whether unredeemed preference shares is afinancial debt?In the matter of ‘Lalchand Surana V/s HyderabadVanaspathy Ltd., (1990) 68 Com Cases 415 at 419(AP)’, preference shareholder was not allowed to filea creditors petition for winding‐up order u/s 433(e)of Companies Act, 1956 because preferenceshareholders are only shareholders and not inposition of creditors. Thus, an unredeemedpreference shareholder does not become ashareholder.



1. Whether unredeemed preference shares is a financial debt? (Cont.)(b) In ‘Barclays Bank Plc V/s British and Commonwealth Holdings Plc,(1996) 1 All ER 381’, it was held that:(i) A preference share is not a debt.(ii) On due date of redemption of preference shares, it does not acquire

the status of a debt.(iii) The law provides for redemption of preference share only if certain

conditions are met, i.e., either the company has earned sufficientprofits to redeem the shares, or the company reinstates theoutgoing capital by a new issue of shares. In any case, thecompany’s capital is retained and, therefore, other creditors are notaffected.

(iv) If preference shares are allowed to be redeemed as they were adebt, it would amount to giving a status of priority to preferenceshareholders, whereas they are actually subordinate to generalcreditors and unsecured lenders.



2. Whether External Commercial Borrowings taken in theform of redeemable preference shares is a financial debt?‐ No, as the rule relating to preference share will be

applicable to all preference shares irrespective of the factthey are ECB.

‐ FEMA does not give any special privilege to suchpreference shares.

Question – What remedy is available to unredeemedpreference shareholder in case the company is unable toredeem?

Suggested Answer – Winding up application as contributoryor on just and equitable ground.



3. Whether Foreign Currency Convertible Bond (FCCB) isfinancial debt?Case – Culross Opportunities SP and Peter Beck & Partners V/s SharonBio‐Medicine Limited (NCLT, Mumbai)(a) The petitioner held nearly 86% of USD 16.5 Million zero coupon

foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCB) issued on 27 November2007.

(b) FCCB were convertible into equity shares at the option of thebondholder within 5 years and 7 days from the date of issue.

(c) Bondholders agreed to extend the bonds for further period of 1‐5years and interest to be paid between LIBOR plus 3.5% ‐ 5% perannum as per ECB Guidelines effective from 01 December 2013 andpayable half‐yearly.

(d) The applicant filed u/s 7 of Insolvency Code as financial creditor.NCLT – Application admitted as FCCB holders are financial creditor.



4. Whether zero percent loan is a financialdebt?

The usual answer will be negative as theconcept of time value of money is missing.



5. Whether optionally convertible debenture is financial debt?

Case ‐ Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd V/s Neelkanth Townshipand Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai‐ CD issued zero percent optionally fully convertible debentures

to FC in 2007, 2008 and 2009 aggregating to INR 51 crores thatwere redeemed with redemption premium in 2011, 2012 and2013.

‐ Initially, FC filed application for nearly INR 226 crores but laterFC filed fresh application for principal amount of INR 51 crores.

NCLT – Application admitted.

Comment – The issue that such optionally convertible debenture isnot a financial debt was not raised before NCLT.



6. Whether FC can start proceedings under Insolvency Code pendingdispute?

Case ‐ Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd V/s Neelkanth Township andConstructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai‐ CD raised an objection that since arbitration proceedings have started as

per section 21 of the Arbitration Act, these proceedings are notmaintainable.

NCLT – As per sections 63, 231 and 238, the provisions of Insolvency Codewill prevail over other proceedings. Pending dispute is irrelevant in case ofapplication u/s 7 of Insolvency Code by FC.

Question ‐ Why the rule of second remedy under Insolvency Code is againstthe principles of judicial administration as applied in ‘AnnapurnaInfrastructure Private Limited & Others V/s Soil Infra Resources Ltd. – NCLTDelhi’ was not applied to this case?



7. Whether as shareholder can start proceedings under Insolvency Code forhis financial debt or operational debt?

Case ‐ Urban Infrastructure Trustee Ltd V/s Neelkanth Township andConstructions Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai‐ CD raised an objection that the applicant is a shareholder of the CD, and

therefore, the applicant cannot initiate the proceedings u/s 7 ofInsolvency Code?

NCLT – Under Insolvency Code, there is no restriction on the shareholder toinitiate proceedings (i) as a financial creditor in case of financial debt; or (ii)as an operational creditor in case of operational debt. [Para 22 on page 11]

Comment – If shareholder is related party u/s 5(24), it shall not have anyright of representation, participation or voting in a meeting of the committeeof creditors. [Proviso to section 21(2)]

Thank You!Jitender Jain

Arcindo LawAdvocates

Level 8, Vibgyor Towers, G Block, C-62, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai 400 098, India T/ +91-99207-44632

E/ [email protected] & [email protected]