Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Shri S A Prem Kumar and Ors. - The same analogy as in Kapil Wadbawan's case (supra) shall be applicable with regard to the prosecution by the Successful Auction Purchaser in liquidation estate when the asset of the corporate debtor has been sold as a going concern and acquisition plan submitted by Successful Auction Purchaser has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, the substitution of the successful bidder of NRRA in the avoidance application can be allowed to give effect to provisions of the Code.

  NCLT Chennai-1 (2025.01.10) in Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Shri S A Prem Kumar and Ors. [(2025) ibclaw.in 50 NCLT, IA(IBC)/1575/CHE/2023 in IA(IBC)/683/CHE/2021 in CP(IB)/756/ CHE/2021] held that;.

• Regulation 44A deals with the treatment of transaction avoidance which itself contemplates that there can be a position regarding the prosecution of avoidance application even after the resolution or closure of liquidation process and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed.

• Where after considering the submissions, provisions of the Code, as well as the Regulations and the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in TATA Steel BSL Ltd. vs. Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,, MANU/NL/0453/2023, the Hon'ble NCLAT has held that the Successful Resolution Applicant can be allowed to prosecute the avoidance application.

• The same analogy as in Kapil Wadbawan's case (supra) shall be applicable with regard to the prosecution by the Successful Auction Purchaser in liquidation estate when the asset of the corporate debtor has been sold as a going concern and acquisition plan submitted by Successful Auction Purchaser has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, the substitution of the successful bidder of NRRA in the avoidance application can be allowed to give effect to provisions of the Code.

Blogger’s Comments; In the above judgement the substitution of the successful bidder of NRRA in the avoidance application has been restricted to the successful bidder who has acquired the CD as a going concern. Thus Avoidance Applications (NRRA) has to be auctioned as a package with the CD as a going concern. However the concerned regulations do not provide for such restrictions.

• 37A. Assignment of not readily realisable assets.

• (1) A liquidator may assign or transfer a not readily realisable asset through a transparent process, in consultation with the stakeholders’ consultation committee in accordance with regulation 31A, for a consideration to any person, who is eligible to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor.

• Explanation. — For the purposes of this sub-regulation, “not readily realisable asset” means any asset included in the liquidation estate which could not be sold through available options and includes contingent or disputed assets and assets underlying proceedings for preferential, undervalued, extortionate credit and fraudulent transactions referred to in sections 43 to 51 and section 66 of the Code.

• XXXX

• 44A. Treatment of avoidance of transaction.

• The liquidator shall, on the advice of the consultation committee, provide in the application along with the final report filed under regulation 45 for the manner in which proceedings in respect of avoidance transactions, if any, under Chapter III or fraudulent or wrongful trading under Chapter VI of Part II of the Code, will be pursued after the dissolution or closure of liquidation process and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed.

Excerpts of the Order;

IA(IBC)/1575/CHE/2023 has been filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) to allow the present application (b) to allow M/s. Sherisha Technologies Private Limited to be substituted as the ‘Applicant’ in IA(IBC)/683/CHE/2021 such that M/s.Sherisha Technologies Private Limited is able to pursue and continue with IA(IBC)/683/CHE/2021 (c) to grant leave to amend the memo of parties in IA(IBC)/683/CHE/2021 as per prayer b and take the amended memo of parties on record; (d) to pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

# 2. It is stated that the applicant is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 22.01.2010 under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New No.1/171, Old Mahabalaipuram Road, Thiruporur Village, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu – 603 110. 

# 3. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor was initiated by this Tribunal on 18.10.2019 and Mr. Mr. R. Venkatakrishnan was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. On 15.11.2019, Mr. R Venkatakrishnan was replaced and Mr. Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther was appointed as the Resolution Professional ("Resolution Professional") of the Corporate Debtor. 

# 4. It is stated that Liquidation was ordered against the Corporate Debtor on 19.09.2022 and Mr.K.Sivalingam was appointed was appointed as the Liquidator. 

# 5. It is stated that on 04.11.2022, the Liquidator issued a sale notice for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a "going concern" and invited expression of interest from the prospective bidders under the provisions of Chapter III of the Code and in accordance with Regulations 32 (e), 32A and 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 ("Liquidation Regulations"). On 14.12.2022, the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor under the Liquidation Regulations issued a second sale notice for sale of the Corporate Debtor 'as a going concern ("option 1") or assets of the Corporate Debtor on a standalone basis ("option 2") ("Process Document"). 

# 6. It is stated that the Applicant submitted its expression of interest ("EOI") on 28.12.2022 along with supporting documents to the Liquidator for the purpose of participating in the e-auction to be conducted on 10.01.2023. Further, as required under the Process Document, an Earnest Money Deposit ("EMD") of INR 5,50,00,000 was also deposited to the satisfaction of the Liquidator. On 10 January 2023, the Applicant participated in the e-auction under Option 1 (Sale as going concern) for purchase of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and was declared as a successful bidder. 

# 7. It is stated that the Applicant accordingly paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.75.80 Crores to the Liquidator and the Liquidator issued Sale Certificate in favour of the Applicant on 20.01.2023, transferring the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant as a 'going concern’. 

# 8. It is stated that on 17.04.2023, the Liquidator issued a sale notice cum public announcement for assignment/ transfer of 'Not Readily Realisable Asset' ("NRRA") of the Corporate Debtor under Regulation 37A of the Liquidation Regulations, being benefits of certain applications filed for avoidance of certain transactions with this Tribunal by the erstwhile Resolution Professional. Accordingly, on 15.05.2023, the e-auction for sale of Corporate Debtor's NRRA was conducted by the Liquidator and the Applicant emerged as the highest bidder in the said e-auction. 

# 9. It is stated that pursuant to the declaration of successful bidder, the Applicant paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.10 Lacs to the Liquidator for purchase of NRRA of the Corporate Debtor and on 10.06.2023, the Liquidator issued a 'Certificate Of Transfer/ Assignment Of Not Readily Realisable Assets' ("Certificate of Transfer/ Assignment") in favour of the Applicant under Clause 13 of Part I of the schedule to Liquidation Regulation, assigning/ transferring the NRRA to the Applicant. (A copy of the said Certificate of Transfer/Assignment is annexed as Annexure C of the Application.) 

# 10. It is stated that on the same date, an assignment deed dated 10th June 2023 ("Assignment Deed") was also entered between the Applicant and the Liquidator, by which the Liquidator (on behalf of the Corporate Debtor) sold, assigned, and transferred to the Applicant, all rights, title, and interest in and to the NRRA in favour of the Applicant. The Assignment Deed records: 

• "1.2 Assignor irrevocable agrees to grant, and hereby grants, the Assignee an unlimited, exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual right to use, exploit and commercialize in any manner known or in the future discovered and for whatever purpose, any rights to NRRA to the extent permitted by applicable law" 

• "2.3. The Assignee hereby accepts and confirms that he/ she be solely responsible for obtaining and carrying out necessary actions and obtaining necessary regulatory/ statutory/ third party approvals, no objections, permissions, or consents, if any, required under applicable law, in order to effectuate fully the purpose, terms and conditions of this Deed. However, the Assignor shall extend the required support, being provisions of necessary documents to the Assignee, for enabling substitution of Assignee in place of Assignor in the pending cases as listed in Annexure 1. The Assignee shall endeavour to do necessary filings before Adjudicating Authority to effect the substitution within 30 days of execution of this Assignment Deed". 

# 11. It is stated that with issuance of the Certificate of Transfer/ Assignment and the execution of the Assignment Deed, the NRRA of the Corporate Debtor irrevocably stands sold/assigned/transferred to the Applicant and Applicant is now entitled to all rights, title and interest in the said NRRA. Pertinently, as per the Certificate of Transfer/ Assignment and the Assignment Deed inter alia, following assets forming part of the NRRA have been sold/ assigned/ transferred in favour of the Applicant: 

# 12. It is stated that the Applicant understood that the Avoidance Application (IA 683 of 2021) was filed by the erstwhile Resolution Professional (Mr. Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther) of the Corporate Debtor, against certain preferential transactions undertaken by Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 in the Corporate Debtor. Pertinently, after the commencement of the liquidation process, the Liquidator filed an IA 1460 (CHE) of 2022 ("Impleadment Application"), seeking impleadment in the Avoidance Application. By order dated 06.02.2023, the Liquidator was allowed to be impleaded in the Avoidance Application. (A copy of the order has been attached herewith as Annexure-E.) It is stated that the Avoidance Application is pending adjudication before this Tribunal. The details of the applicant to the Avoidance Application, as per the 'Memo of Parties' (available on the NCLT website) in the Avoidance Application, are as follows 

• "Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther Resolution Professional For M/s Cauvery Power Generation Chennai Private Limited IP-PO 1727/2019-2020/12620 No R094, SBIOA Unit Enclave, Mambakkam PO, Near Sivan Temple, Thiruporur Thaluk, Chennai-600127 9930846070 mail: amierhamsa@gmail.com ….Applicant" 

# 13. It is stated that the Applicant understands that since the Liquidator has sought for the impleadment in the Avoidance Application, the Liquidator will also be a party to the said Application. The details of the Liquidator are: "K. Sivalingam Liquidator of Cauvery Powergeneration Chennai Private Limited, Flat No. 1603, Tulive Horizon Residences, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600093 ......Applicant” 

# 14. It is stated that as mentioned above, the Applicant has now taken over the Corporate Debtor as a 'going concern' and has also acquired the NRRAs of the Corporate Debtor including the Avoidance Application and the rights, title and interest in relation to the same. Thus, as per the Certificate of Transfer/ Assignment and the Assignment Deed, the Applicant is entitled to pursue the Avoidance Application and retain benefits (if any) arising from the Avoidance Application. 

# 15. Pursuant to Clause 2.3 of the Assignment Deed, the Applicant has filed the present Application seeking substitution of its name as the Applicant in IA (IBC) NO. 683/CHE/2021 ("Avoidance Application") to pursue and assist the Tribunal in adjudication of the same. The details of the Applicant for the purpose of its name substitution as an applicant in the Avoidance Application, are as followsSherisha Technologies Private Limited (Formerly Sun Edison Energy India Private Limited) Having its registered office at no. 1/171, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-603110 

# 16. It is stated that the Applicant have sought leave to amend the memo of parties in IA(IBC)/683/CHE/2021 and seeks that the amended memo of parties be taken on record by this Tribunal. The amended memo of parties is annexed as Annexure F of the application. COMMON REPLY FILED BY R1 & R3 

# 17. The Respondents (R1 & R3) has filed a counter vide S.R.No.4413 dated 17.10.2023. 

# 18. The main bone of contention of the Respondents (R1 & R3) is that the NCLT is not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate avoidance applications pursued by any third parties or assignees, when adjudication is not complete in the said case. 

# 19. It is stated that only an application or proceeding "by or against the corporate debtor" can be entertained under Section 60(5)(a) of the Code by the NCLT. Further as per Section 60(5)(b) of the Code, only a claim by or against the Corporate Debtor and its subsidiary outside India can be adjudicated. Hence, avoidance application filed by the RP or the Liquidator under Section 43, 45, 50 and 66 of the Code can be considered against the Corporate Debtor, and consequently the NCLT will have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate. 

# 20. It is stated that if any pending avoidance application is assigned to a third party or an assignee, the said application cannot be pursued by the said third party or assignee, as the said proceeding would cease to be an issue arising out of CIRP or Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor in terms of Section 60(5)(c) of the Code, as the beneficiary of those proceedings would be the third party or assignee, and recovery if any would be realised and added to the asset pool of the third party or assignee. Furthermore, what was earlier a dispute between the "Corporate Debtor, through the RP/Liquidator vs. the Respondents of PUFE Applications", will now, become a dispute between "an Assignee and Respondents of PUFE Applications", which will be dehors the insolvency proceedings of the Corporate Debtor. 

# 21. It is stated that the above proposition has been considered and held positively by the coordinate bench of the NCLT at New Delhi in the matter of M/s. Inquest Fintech Private Limited Vs. Ms. Maya Gupta Liquidator of M/s. Rain Automotive India Private Limited, numbered as IA Nos. 35, 36, and 57 of 2022 in Company Petition No. (IB)-1095(ND)/2019, dated 11.08.2023. 

# 22. It is stated that the orders passed by a coordinate bench of the NCLT will serve as a binding precedent on other benches of the NCLT, in light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in the matter of: a. Re DLF Developers Ltd in Company Appeal (AT) No. 180 of 2019 dated 19.08.2019, and; b. Re Ambuja Cements Ltd in Company Appeal (AT) No. 19 of 2021 dated 06.04.2021 

# 23. It is stated that intent behind avoidance/PUFE applications filed under Section 43, 45, 50 and 66 is not the "recovery", but to maximise the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. However, if the avoidance/PUFE applications are allowed to be pursued by Third Party or Assignee, the Adjudication of such applications, pursued by a Third Party or an Assignee would effectively end up making the NCLT a "Recovery Forum". 

# 24. It is stated that there is no provision in the Code under which the Applicant herein can pursue the Section 43 Avoidance Application. Further, it is stated that Section 43 of the Code does not contemplate a Assignee/ or a Third party on behalf of the RP or Liquidator to either initiate avoidance of preferential transaction proceedings or to continue such proceedings pursuant to assignment of right to proceeds from avoidance applications under Regulation 37A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), the present Application ought not to be allowed by this Tribunal on this ground alone. The above proposition has been considered and held positively by the coordinate bench of the NCLT at New Delhi in the matter of M/s. Inquest Fintech Private Limited Vs. Ms. Maya Gupta Liquidator of M/s. Rain Automotive India Private Limited, numbered as I.A Nos. 35, 36, and 57 of 2022 in Company Petition No. (IB)-1095(ND)/2019, dated 11.08.2023. 

# 25. It is stated that the present application is silent on the material requirements/ingredients prescribed under Regulation 37A of the Regulations for a valid assignment of Not Readily Realisable Assets (NRRA) of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the Applicant shall not be entertained. 

# 26. It is stated that the Application and the documents filed in support of the same are silent on whether the decision of the Liquidator to assign the proceeds from the avoidance of preferential transactions filed under Section 43 of the Code was made pursuant to consultation with the stakeholders' consultation committee in accordance with Regulation 31A of the Regulations. 

# 27. It is stated that there is nothing on record to evidence the fact that the Applicant herein is not barred under Section 29A of the Code from submitting a Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor. It is an essential requirement under Regulation 37A of the Regulations that the Liquidator may only transfer a not readily realisable asset to a person, if such a person is eligible to submit a Resolution Plan for insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, and the Applicant herein has failed to place any document on record to evidence the fact that the Liquidator had in fact considered the status of the Applicant under Section 29A of the Code before assigning the proceeds from I.A No. 683 of 2021 to the Applicant herein. 

# 28. It is stated that the Applicant has failed to place on record the sale notice cum public announcement for assignment/transfer of NRRA of the Corporate Debtor that is alleged to have been issued by the Liquidator, on the basis of which the auction is said to have been conducted. The Applicant by not placing on record the sale notice cum public announcement has failed to show that the assignment of not readily realisable assets of the Corporate Debtor was carried out by way of a "Transparent Process". Hence, the present application should be dismissed. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY R2 

# 29. It is stated that present IA has been filed by a Third Party/Auction Purchaser. It is stated that the Applicant herein cannot substitute itself in the shoes of the Liquidator for the purposes of prosecuting the Application under Section 43(1) of the IBC, 2016. 

# 30. It is submitted that the burden of proof is on the Liquidator, being the Applicant in I.A. No. 683 of 2021, to establish before this Tribunal that the ingredients of Section 43 of the IBC are satisfied, in so far as the 2nd Respondent is concerned. This exercise cannot be sought to be undertaken by a Third Party/Auction Purchaser, who is said to have entered the picture as late as June 2023. Hence, the present application should be dismissed. COMMON WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF R1 & R3 

# 31. The Respondents R1 & R3 have filed a Common Written Submissions. It is stated that the present IA filed by Sherisha Technologies P Ltd as a purported NRRA assignee has no locus standi under the Code to be impleaded in the place of the Liquidator on the following grounds: a) The Liquidation Process of this Corporate Debtor has already been terminated by this Bench vide order dated 26.09.2023 in IA/1618/2023. b) The NRRA’s stood assigned to the Financial Creditors at an earlier date and the Liquidator could not have sold the NRRAs to the Applicant herein. c) The ratio of the orders of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Ritu Tandon vs Rain Automotive India Pvt Ltd are binding on this Bench. 

SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS FILED BY THE LIQUIDATOR 

32. The Synopsis of Arguments has been filed by the Liquidator vide S.R.No.4838 dated 30.09.2024 in IA’s/1667, 1168, 1170, 1171 & 1172 of 2023. 

# 33. Regulation 44A of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 state that: 

• "The liquidator shall, on the advice of the consultation committee, provide in the application along with the final report filed under regulation 45 for the manner in which proceedings in respect of avoidance transactions, if any, under Chapter III or fraudulent or wrongful trading under Chapter VI of Part II of the Code, will be pursued after the dissolution or closure of liquidation process and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed.". 

# 34. Further, the Hon'ble NCLAT, in the case of Kanwer Sachdev Vs. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd., MANU/NL/0905/2023 dated 10.11.2023 that Regulation 44A deals with the treatment of transaction avoidance which itself contemplates that there can be a position regarding the prosecution of avoidance application even after the resolution or closure of liquidation process and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed. The Judgement further refers to an earlier judgement of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Kapil Wadhawan Vs. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. Ors., MANU/NL/0453/2023 (2023) ibclaw.in 320 NCLAT, wherein after considering the respective submissions, provisions of the Code, as well as the Regulations and the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in TATA Steel BSL Ltd. vs. Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,, MANU/NL/0453/2023, the Hon'ble NCLAT has held that the Successful Resolution Applicant can be allowed to prosecute the avoidance application. Thus, it can be held that the same analogy as in Kapil Wadbawan's case (supra) shall be applicable with regard to the prosecution by the Successful Auction Purchaser in liquidation estate when the asset of the corporate debtor has been sold as a going concern and acquisition plan submitted by Successful Auction Purchaser has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, the substitution of the successful bidder of NRRA in the avoidance application should be allowed to give effect to provisions of the Code. 

# 35. Insofar as IA. Nos. 1575, 1576 and 1577 of 2023 ("Substitution Applications") are concerned, the Liquidator is not formally a party to the said applications, the Liquidator endorses the stand of the Applicant Sherisha Technologies Private Limited and has no objection to the same. This is also in line with the timeline for the conduct of the liquidation under Regulation 44 of the Liquidation Process Regulations mandating the completion of liquidation within a year resultantly, for the Liquidator to be relieved and/or discharged after duly performing his duties in accordance with the Code. 

FINDINGS OF THIS TRIBUNAL: 

# 36. Heard the submissions of both the applicant and the Respondents and perused the documents placed on record. 

# 37. It is seen from the application that the applicant viz., Sherisha Technologies Private Limited has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.75.80 Crores to the liquidator and the liquidator issued the Sale Certificate in favour of Applicant on 20.01.2023, transferring the Corporate Debtor to the applicant as a ‘going concern’. Further, it is seen that the applicant viz., Sherisha Technologies Private Limited has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs to the Liquidator for purchase of NRRA of the Corporate Debtor. On 10.06.2023, the liquidator issued a ‘Certificate of Transfer/ Assignment of NRRA’ in favour of the applicant. 

# 38. Vide order dated 03.06.2024, this Tribunal directed the Stakeholder’s Consultation Committee to address on the applications IA 1167, 1168, 1170, 1171 and 1172 of 2023 in IBA/756 /2019 and Applications IA 1575/2023 in IA 683/2021, 1576/2023 and 1577/2023 in IA 684/2021. 

# 39. The learned Counsel for the SCC has filed a note vide S.R.No.4811 dated 27.09.2024. It is stated that vide Minutes of Seventh Meeting of the SCC dated 23.02.2023, in which the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor were present, the sale of NRRAs was voted upon, and the Liquidator was directed to carry out the same, with an EMD of 10 lakhs, and permitting an incremental bid price of 10 lakhs. Thereafter, the timelines for the same came to be revised in the Minutes of the Eighth SCC dated 23.03.2023, and the bidding process was undertaken. However, the sole bidder could not deposit the EMD, as recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.04.2023. 

# 40. It is stated that as recorded in the Minutes of Ninth Meeting of the SCC dated 13.04.2023, it was resolved to re-issue the invitation of interest for the NRRAs. Accordingly, on 15.05.2023, the auction for sale of Corporate Debtor's NRRA was conducted by the Liquidator wherein the Applicant, i.e. Sherisha Technologies Private Limited was the sole bidder submitting its bid at Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since the Applicant met the parameters set out by the Liquidator and the SCC, the Applicant was declared as the successful bidder. The same is captured in the Minutes of Tenth Meeting of the SCC, where in the bid value of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) came to be confirmed by the SCC. Thereafter, the Applicant paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the Liquidator and on 10.06.2023, the Liquidator issued a Certificate of Assignment Of Not Readily Realisable Assets' in favour of the Applicant under Clause 13 of Part I of the schedule to Liquidation Regulation, assigning the NRRA to the Applicant. It is placed on record in the Minutes of Eleventh Meeting of the SCC that the proceeds of the same have been distributed. The Liquidator has been directed to file the closure report and compliance certificate in Form H. The proceeds have thereafter, been divided in-line with Section 53 of the Code. This was also conveyed to the S. Elangovan, the authorised representative of the employees vide letter dated 09.03.2023. Therefore, the SCC seeks to allow the present application. 

# 41. The case of Ritu Tandon vs Rain Automotive India P Ltd (Supra) referred by the Respondents (R1 & R3) is of the Co-ordinate Bench. However, The Hon'ble NCLAT, in the case of Kanwer Sachdev Vs. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd., MANU/NL/0905/2023 has held that Regulation 44A deals with the treatment of transaction avoidance which itself contemplates that there can be a position regarding the prosecution of avoidance application even after the resolution or closure of liquidation process and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed. The Judgement further refers to judgement of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Kapil Wadhawan Vs. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. Ors., MANU/NL/0453/2023 (2023) ibclaw.in 320 NCLAT, where after considering the submissions, provisions of the Code, as well as the Regulations and the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in TATA Steel BSL Ltd. vs. Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,, MANU/NL/0453/2023, the Hon'ble NCLAT has held that the Successful Resolution Applicant can be allowed to prosecute the avoidance application. The same analogy as in Kapil Wadbawan's case (supra) shall be applicable with regard to the prosecution by the Successful Auction Purchaser in liquidation estate when the asset of the corporate debtor has been sold as a going concern and acquisition plan submitted by Successful Auction Purchaser has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, the substitution of the successful bidder of NRRA in the avoidance application can be allowed to give effect to provisions of the Code. 

# 42. It is seen from Clause 2.3 of the Deed of Assignment that: 

• 2.3. The Assignee hereby accepts and confirms that he/she shall be solely responsible for obtaining and carrying out necessary actions and obtaining necessary regulatory / statutory / third party approvals, no objections, permissions or consents, if any, required under applicable law, in order to effectuate fully the purposes, terms and conditions of this Deed. However, the Assignor shall extend the required support, being provision of necessary documents to the Assignee, for enabling substitution of Assignee in place of Assignor in the pending cases as listed in Annexure-1. The Assignee shall endeavour to do necessary filing before Adjudicating Authority to effect the substitution within 30 days of execution of this Assignment Deed. 

# 43. It is manifestly clear from the above clause that the Assignor/ Liquidator shall enable the substitute the Assignee/ Sherisha Technologies Private Limited in place of Assignor/ Liquidator in the pending cases as listed in Annexure-1. Hence, the Contention of the Respondents will not hold any water. 

# 44. Further, it is seen from the Synopsis of Arguments filed by the Liquidator that the Liquidator has given no objections to the present application. 

# 45. In view of the Assignment Deed, SCC’s Consent for Substitution and the Liquidator has granted the no objection, the present application deserves to be allowed. 

# 46. We therefore pass the following order: 

• (i) The substitution of Sherisha Technologies Private Limited in place of applicant in IA(IBC)/683/2021 is allowed. 

• (ii) The Applicant/Sherisha Technologies Private Limited is directed to file necessary correction to be carried out in cause title in IA(IBC)/683/2021 and 

• (iii) The Applicant is directed to file the clean copy of amended memo of parties in IA(IBC)/683/2021 within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of this order. 

# 47. IA(IBC)1575/CHE/2023 is accordingly disposed of. 

----------------------------------------

Imp. Rulings - Role of RP & Liquidator

 Imp. Rulings - Role of RP & Liquidator

Index;

1. High Court Delhi (2024.05.27) in Sundaresh Bhat Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India [Neutral Citation 2024 DHC 4546, W.P.(C) 14389/2022]

---------------------------------------------

1. High Court Delhi (2024.05.27) in Sundaresh Bhat Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India [Neutral Citation 2024 DHC 4546, W.P.(C) 14389/2022]

• # 15. The role of the liquidator in insolvency proceedings is paramount to the entire process. The liquidation proceedings revolve around the official liquidator and he has to discharge his functions keeping in mind the benefit of the company which is under liquidation. They must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct, diligence, and impartiality to uphold the integrity of the process. As fiduciaries, they are entrusted with the responsibility of managing the affairs of insolvent entities and any hint of impropriety or conflict of interest could undermine the credibility of the entire insolvency process. A liquidator is entrusted with safeguarding the interests of all parties involved, navigating complex legal and financial terrain with complete transparency. With such authority comes a heightened obligation to exercise discretion judiciously and in the best interests of all stakeholders involved. Therefore, while the official liquidator enjoys a significant degree of autonomy, they are bound to wield their power responsibly and ethically within the confines of the IBC framework. Upholding ethical principles and demonstrating unwavering commitment to fairness are paramount for an official liquidator to effectively discharge their duties under the IBC. At the same time, it is imperative that a liquidator is given the autonomy that is required to take decisions that may help in actualizing the real value of the assets or materials that are being liquidated.

[ Link Synopsis ]

----------------------------------------------------------

Sundaresh Bhat Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India - In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI with respect to the charge of appointment of BRAL, in which the Petitioner himself is a partner, and paying more fees to it than what was paid to the Petitioner himself as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, does not require interference.

 HC Delhi (2024.05.27) in Sundaresh Bhat Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India [Neutral Citation 2024 DHC 4546, W.P.(C) 14389/2022] held that;.

• The Liquidator cannot be permitted to dissipate the assets of the company as the same will defeat the entire liquidation process and this would go contrary to the very scheme of the IBC.

• The liquidation proceedings revolve around the official liquidator and he has to discharge his functions keeping in mind the benefit of the company which is under liquidation. They must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct, diligence, and impartiality to uphold the integrity of the process

• A liquidator is entrusted with safeguarding the interests of all parties involved, navigating complex legal and financial terrain with complete transparency. With such authority comes a heightened obligation to exercise discretion judiciously and in the best interests of all stakeholders involved.

• Upholding ethical principles and demonstrating unwavering commitment to fairness are paramount for an official liquidator to effectively discharge their duties under the IBC.

• The finding of the Disciplinary Committee that the Petitioner has not stated any criteria or basis for calculating fees of BRAL cannot be found fault with. The terms of appointment of BRAL are vague and there is no criterion for fixing its fees. The fact that the fees of BRAL, which was appointed by the Petitioner to provide support services to the Liquidator, exceeds the fees of the Liquidator is sufficient to show misconduct on the part of the Petitioner.

• The facts of the case cries aloud that BRAL has not only been engaged to provide support services. The actual motive of the Petitioner behind appointing BRAL was to increase his own fee by circumventing Regulation 4 of the Liquidation Regulations.

• In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI with respect to the charge of appointment of BRAL, in which the Petitioner himself is a partner, and paying more fees to it than what was paid to the Petitioner himself as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, does not require interference.

Excerpts of the Order;

# 1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging an Order dated 28.09.2022, issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IBBI’) in case bearing No. IBBI/DC/131/2022, suspending the registration of the Petitioner herein for a period of two years.

# 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Writ Petition are as under:

a. ABG Shipyard Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporate Debtor’) was in the business of shipbuilding. Pursuant to an application filed by the ICICI Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IBC’), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad passed an order admitting the application filed by the ICICI Bank commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIRP’) of the Corporate Debtor.

b. The Petitioner was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. Vide Order dated 25.04.2019, the NCLT Ahmedabad directed that the Corporate Debtor shall undergo liquidation under Section 33(2) of the IBC and the Petitioner was to act as a Liquidator to discharge duties under Section 35 of the IBC.

c. On 02.06.2021, the Petitioner received a Notice of Inspection of the liquidation assignment of Corporate Debtor which was being handled by the Petitioner.

d. On 04.04.2022, the Petitioner received a draft inspection report under Regulation 6(1) & (2) of the IBBI Inspection and Investigation Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Inspection Regulations’).

e. On the basis of the draft inspection report, a Show Cause Notice dated 26.07.2022 was issued to the Petitioner by the IBBI asking the Petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against the Petitioner for the following charges:

• i. Influencing Registered Valuer to change valuation of assets.

• ii. Prescribing non-refundable participation fee.

• iii. Appointment of unregistered valuers to conduct valuation in the process of liquidation.

• iv. Paying excess fee to a support service called – BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP (hereinafter referred to as ‘BRAL’), in which the Petitioner himself was a partner.

f. Reply was filed by the Petitioner. Hearing was given to the Petitioner and the impugned Order was passed by the IBBI on 28.09.2022.

g. In the impugned Order, the IBBI has held as under:

• i. As far as the first contravention regarding influencing registered valuers to change the value of the assets is concerned, the IBBI took a lenient view and did not proceed further with the contravention and closed the charge against the Petitioner with a word of caution.

• ii. As regards the second contravention of prescribing non-refundable participation fee of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- vide public announcements made on 17.09.2019, 27.09.2019, 21.10.2019, and 11.11.2019 respectively on prospective bidders for participating in the auction process at the time of submission of Expression of Interests is concerned, the IBBI held that seeking non-refundable participation fees from prospective bidders defeats the spirit of the IBC, one of the objectives of which is maximization of value of assets of the Corporate Debtor. The IBBI held that such unreasonable conditions have the effect of dissuading the prospective bidders from participating in the bidding process. The Board, therefore, held that the Petitioner has acted in contravention of regulation 36A(4)(d) and regulation 36B (4) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIRP Regulations’) and also in contravention of clauses 13 and 14 of the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals Regulations.

• iii. As regards the third charge against the Petitioner, i.e. appointment of unregistered valuers is concerned, the allegation against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner appointed two registered valuers, namely, Manish Kaneria and Rakesh Narula, however, the bills were being made in the name of RBSA Valuation Advisors LLP which was not a registered valuer at that point of time to conduct the valuation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. It is further alleged that the valuation report dated 15.07.2019 and corrigendum dated 19.11.2019, submitted by RBSA Valuation Advisors LLP were signed by Mr. Manish Kaneria as one of the partners of RBSA and not in his individual capacity, and the valuation report dated 13.07.2019, was signed by Rakesh Narula as partner of Rakesh Narula & Co. The Board, therefore, held that the Petitioner has acted in contravention of IBBI Circular No. IBBI/RV/019/2018 dated 17.10.2018 which mandates the liquidator to appoint only registered valuers to conduct valuation under the IBC and Regulations made thereunder. It was also found that the valuers appointed by the Petitioner namely Manish Kaneria engaged one Mr. Rajeev Shah to obtain a valuation of another asset class of Securities and Financial assets, and Rakesh Narula engaged Mr. Tejas Dave for the valuation of Land and building asset class and Chander Sawhney for the valuation of another Securities and Financial Assets class. The IBBI has held that rule 8(2) of Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation Rules), 2017 provides for obtaining inputs for the valuation report or get a separate valuation for an asset class conducted from another registered valuer whereas Regulation 35(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Liquidation Regulations’) provides for appointment of two registered valuers for each class of asset by the liquidator and Rule 8(2) cannot be interpreted to hold outsourcing (of responsibility) with obtaining inputs and, therefore, the conduct of the Petitioner in outsourcing the appointment of valuers to third person, is in contravention of Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 35(2) of Liquidation Regulations and Clause 14 of the Code of Conduct under IP Regulations.

• iv. As regards the last contravention against the Petitioner, i.e. fee which has been paid to BRAL which was engaged by the Petitioner for providing support services in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor is concerned, the Board has found that the Petitioner is one of the partners of the BRAL and since the inception of the liquidation process till the quarter period ended in June, 2022, the fees payable to BRAL is Rs.2,83,28,750/- whereas fees payable to the Petitioner is Rs.2,21,00,000/- and, therefore, the BRAL was paid more fees than the Liquidator himself. The Board, therefore, held that any entity engaged to help a liquidator cannot be expected to be entrusted with responsibilities more than that of liquidator so as to justify higher fees to such an entity in comparison to that of the liquidator. Therefore, engaging a related entity on vague terms and conditions and paying them fee more than the fee of liquidator is not only unjustified but also mala fide and, therefore, the Petitioner is guilty of contravention of Regulation 7(2) of the Liquidation Regulations and Clause 25A of the Code of Conduct under IP regulations.

h. By the Impugned Order, the Board has suspended the registration of the Petitioner for a period of two years w.e.f. 28.10.2022.

• i. It is this Order which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

# 3. Notice in the present Writ Petition was issued on 18.10.2022. 

Pleadings are complete.

# 4. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

# 5. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that no action has been taken against the Petitioner with regard to the first charge which was contravention regarding influencing registered valuers to change the value of the assets and likewise, the Petitioner could not have been held guilty for other charges as well.

# 6. With regard to the charge of prescribing non-refundable participation fee on prospective bidders for participating in the auction process at the time of submission of Expression of Interests is concerned, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that though the Show Cause Notice indicates that Regulation 36A(4)(d) and 36B(4) of the CIRP Regulations have been violated by the Petitioner, the Board itself has, in the impugned Order, accepted the contention of the Petitioner that Regulation 36A(4)(d) and 36B(4) of the CIRP Regulations do not apply to the infraction in the present case. He further draws the attention of this Court to a notification bearing IBBI/2021-22/GN/REG079 dated 30.09.2021 by which a proviso has been inserted in Schedule I (1) (3) of the Liquidation Regulations prohibiting payment of non-refundable deposit or fee for participation in the auction process. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that when the auction process advertisements were issued on 17.09.2019, 27.09.2019, 22.10.2019 and 11.11.2019, proviso to Schedule I (1) (3) of the Liquidation Regulations was not in force as it was issued after nearly two years in 2021 and, therefore, there was no embargo in the Liquidation Regulations against prescribing non-refundable participation fee in the auction process for sale of assets under liquidation. He states that prescribing non-refundable participation fee on prospective bidders for participating in the auction process at the time of submission of Expression of Interests was done to deter non-serious participants from participating in the auction process for sale of assets. He, therefore, states that the Petitioner ought not to have been held guilty for prescribing participation fee as the same was not in contravention to any Regulations or Clauses.

# 7. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that prescription of non-refundable fee on prospective bidders for participating in the auction process at the time of submission of Expression of Interests is against the freedom available to the market participants and basic principles of the code and, therefore, even though there is no express violation of any Regulations by the Petitioner, in the interest of the Corporate Debtor and in order to maximize the participation in the auction process, the Petitioner ought not to have imposed any fee on prospective bidders.

# 8. With regard to the abovementioned charge of prescribing non-refundable participation fee on prospective bidders for participating in the auction process at the time of submission of Expression of Interests is concerned, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner has not acted in violation of any express contravention of any Regulations or Clauses. Material on record indicates that proviso to Schedule I (1) (3) of the Regulations was not in force when the auction took place and the proviso to Schedule I (1) (3) was issued in the year 2021 which is two years after the auction. Since the proviso prohibiting payment of fee for participation in the auction process was brought out only on 30.09.2021, the Petitioner cannot be found guilty of imposing non-refundable participation fee on prospective bidders more so when the reserve price of the assets which were to be sold was much more higher than the participation fee imposed on the prospective bidders for participating in the auction process. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the view taken by the Board that the Petitioner has violated any Code of Conduct under IP regulations.

# 9. With regard to the charge against the Petitioner for appointing unregistered valuers, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the fact that the valuation report has been given in the name of firm does not mean that the valuation was not done by the registered valuers. He states that at best the incident can be termed as irregularity and the valuation report is valid as it has been done by a registered valuer. He further states that the fact that bills have been raised in the name of the firm is also immaterial as long as the valuation report cannot be found fault with. He states that the engagement letters were issued in the name of Mr. Manish Kaneria and Mr. Rakesh Narula, in their individual capacity, and the fact that while drafting the minutes for the meeting of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee on 19.06.2019, names of partnership firms of Mr. Kaneria and Mr. Narula have been used instead of their actual names does not change the fact that Mr. Manish Kaneria and Mr. Rakesh Narula were appointed as registered valuers in their individual capacity and not their firms and the same is fully substantiated by the appointment letters. He further states that the fact that while signing the valuation report, if the registered valuer used his title as partner of the firm then the Petitioner cannot be held responsible for that and it does not retract the correctness or otherwise of the valuation report.

# 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent states that once Mr. Manish Kaneria and Mr. Rakesh Narula have been appointed as registered valuers in their individual capacity they could not have acted as partners of the firm which itself are not registered. He states that appointment of unregistered firms as valuers is in violation of Clause 35(2) of the Liquidation Regulations. He further states that Mr. Manish Kaneria and Mr. Rakesh Narula have further outsourced their work to other registered valuers for the purpose of valuing the assets and the same is violative of Circular bearing No. No. IP/002/2018 dated 03.01.2018 issued by the IBBI.

# 11. This Court is of the opinion that though what the Petitioner has done is not in strict confirmation of the regulations, but this Court finds that the two persons, i.e. Mr. Manish Kaneria and Mr. Rakesh Narula, are registered valuers in their individual capacity. Though the valuation report has been given in the name of their partner firms, the valuation reports have been signed by the above mentioned persons. It is not the case of the Respondents that the valuation report given Mr. Manish Kaneria and Mr. Rakesh Narula in the name of their firm has not been accepted or that it has been questioned anywhere. It is also not the case that the valuers to whom Mr. Manish Kaneria and Mr. Rakesh Narula have further outsourced the work, are not registered valuers. No extra fees in the name of outsourcing the work and hiring additional valuers has been paid by the Board. The total fees which have been paid to the registered valuers includes all the work done for valuing the assets of the Corporate Debtor. This Court, therefore, does not find any serious infirmity in the decision taken by the Petitioner which would amount to gross misconduct on the part of the Petitioner.

# 12. With regard to the last charge against the Petitioner for appointing BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP, in which the Petitioner himself is a partner, and paying more fees to it than what was paid to the Petitioner himself as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that even though fee has been claimed by the BRAL, the same has yet not been paid by the Board. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court the remunerations paid to BRAL to contend that only 50% of the claimed amount has been paid and the remaining 50% is yet to be paid. He, therefore, contends that the Petitioner has not violated any provisions of the Regulations of the IBBI. He contends that BRAL was appointed for providing support services to the Liquidator after taking the consent of the Committee of Creditors and, therefore, nothing has been done by the Petitioner without disclosing it to the Committee of Creditors. He further states that Petitioner has not violated Regulation 7(2) of the Liquidation Regulations which prohibits the liquidator from appointing a professional who is his relative, is a related party of the Corporate Debtor or who has served as an auditor to the Corporate Debtor in five years preceding the date of commencement of liquidation process. He states that since the Petitioner is neither a relative, nor a related party in terms of Section 5(24) of the IBC and, therefore, the fact that the Petitioner is a partner in BRAL does not make him a related party. He further states that the Petitioner has also not violated Clause 25A of the Code of Conduct under IP regulations because other than saying that the fee bill raised by the BRAL is higher than the fee bill raised by the Petitioner, there is nothing to substantiate that the fees bill is unreasonable. He states that merely raising bills cannot be termed as misconduct until and unless the bills are cleared and the payments are made.

# 13. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the terms of payment to BRAL are extremely vague. No fees cap has been given in the terms of payment to BRAL and the Petitioner has tried to circumvent the provision of the payment to the Liquidator which is capped under Regulation 4 of the Liquidation Regulations. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, therefore, states that the Petitioner has engaged a firm in which he is a partner only to circumvent the fee cap given in Regulation 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submits that a firm which has been engaged to assist the Liquidator cannot charge a fee more than that of liquidator.

# 14. A perusal of the Scheme of the IBC shows that once the attempts to resurrect a company fails, the company goes into liquidation and very often the Resolution Professional, who is resurrecting the company, is appointed as the Liquidator of the company. The purport of the Liquidator is to ensure that maximum value of the assets of the company is released by selling assets of the company so that the debtors, which include the financial institutions; Public Sector Banks; employees; etc, are paid in full. The Liquidator cannot be permitted to dissipate the assets of the company as the same will defeat the entire liquidation process and this would go contrary to the very scheme of the IBC.

# 15. The role of the liquidator in insolvency proceedings is paramount to the entire process. The liquidation proceedings revolve around the official liquidator and he has to discharge his functions keeping in mind the benefit of the company which is under liquidation. They must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct, diligence, and impartiality to uphold the integrity of the process. As fiduciaries, they are entrusted with the responsibility of managing the affairs of insolvent entities and any hint of impropriety or conflict of interest could undermine the credibility of the entire insolvency process. A liquidator is entrusted with safeguarding the interests of all parties involved, navigating complex legal and financial terrain with complete transparency. With such authority comes a heightened obligation to exercise discretion judiciously and in the best interests of all stakeholders involved. Therefore, while the official liquidator enjoys a significant degree of autonomy, they are bound to wield their power responsibly and ethically within the confines of the IBC framework. Upholding ethical principles and demonstrating unwavering commitment to fairness are paramount for an official liquidator to effectively discharge their duties under the IBC. At the same time, it is imperative that a liquidator is given the autonomy that is required to take decisions that may help in actualizing the real value of the assets or materials that are being liquidated.

# 16. A perusal of the records reveals that the Petitioner appointed BRAL for providing support services in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor. Undisputedly, the Petitioner is a partner in BRAL. The fee payable to the Liquidator is prescribed under Regulation 4 of the Liquidation Regulations. The facts of the case reveal that appointing BRAL, in which the Petitioner is a partner, is a calculated attempt on the part of the Petitioner to get more fees. The finding of the Disciplinary Committee that the Petitioner has not stated any criteria or basis for calculating fees of BRAL cannot be found fault with. The terms of appointment of BRAL are vague and there is no criterion for fixing its fees. The fact that the fees of BRAL, which was appointed by the Petitioner to provide support services to the Liquidator, exceeds the fees of the Liquidator is sufficient to show misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. The act of the Petitioner is not in conformity with the purport and purpose of the liquidation process. A Liquidator cannot permit a Corporate Debtor, which is in liquidation, to bleed the company which itself is in liquidation. The amount given is meant to clear the debts of the creditors and payments of the employees. The fact that the Petitioner does not strictly falls as a related party within the scope of Section 5(24) of the of the IBC cannot absolve the Petitioner, who has appointed a firm, in which he is a partner, to provide support services and allowing the said firm to raise bills which are higher than the fee of the Petitioner himself. The act of the Petitioner is contrary to the intent of the liquidation process. The facts of the case cries aloud that BRAL has not only been engaged to provide support services. The actual motive of the Petitioner behind appointing BRAL was to increase his own fee by circumventing Regulation 4 of the Liquidation Regulations. The fact that fees bill of BRAL has not been cleared does not absolve the Petitioner of the charge of misconduct and contravention of Liquidation Regulations. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI with respect to the charge of appointment of BRAL, in which the Petitioner himself is a partner, and paying more fees to it than what was paid to the Petitioner himself as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, does not require interference.

# 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the Board that the Petitioner is guilty of the last charge does warrant any interference, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to set aside the Order of suspension of the registration of the Petitioner. However, in view of the fact that out of 24 months of suspension, the Petitioner has already undergone 20 months of suspension, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment of suspension from a period of two years to the period already undergone.

# 18. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.

----------------------------------------