NCLT Kolkata (2025.07.04) in Mr. Anil Goel (Liquidator -M/s Varrsana Ispat Ltd.) vs Stata Mater Investments Limited and Anr. [IA No. 1061/KB/2023 IN CP (IB) No. 543/KB/2017] held that;
In the absence of any subsisting stay, and in view of the rights conferred upon the Liquidator under Sections 35(1)(e) and 35(1)(f) of the Code to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor, and the procedural mandate under Regulation 32 and 32A of the Liquidation Regulations, the Liquidator’s action to initiate and conclude the sale process cannot be faulted.
Further, Section 32A of the Code, inserted through the 2019 Amendment, provides a statutory shield to the Corporate Debtor and the assets in the hands of the successful bidder from liability for offences committed prior to the initiation of CIRP, provided the successful bidder is not a related party or involved in the alleged offence.
Accordingly, we permit the Liquidator to complete the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to Stata Mater Investments Limited. Immunity under Section 32A of the Code shall operate in favour of the successful bidder, and the appropriate authority under PMLA under have to be approached for appropriate relief in regard to the assets shall not proceed against the assets sold pursuant to this process.
Section 32A assures the resolution applicant that it shall not be held liable for any offense that may have been committed by the corporate debtor prior to the initiation of the CIRP. It similarly extends that warranty in respect of the properties of the corporate debtor once a resolution plan stands approved or in case of a sale of liquidation assets.”
The Appellate Tribunal has in paragraph 10 allowed the filing of application before the Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of claiming relief/concessions/direction which “may be necessary for operationalisation of the Corporate Debtor as per terms and conditions of the process document”
Successful Bidder on e-Auction of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern can make only such prayers for reliefs/concessions which are commensurate and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the process document.
Excerpts of the Order;
1. This Court is congregated through a hybrid mode.
2. Learned Counsels for both parties were heard at length.
3. The instant application being I.A. (IB) No. 1061/KB/2023, has been referred by a Mr. Anil Goel (Liquidator- M/s Varrsana Ispat Ltd) under section 35(1)(N) and section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for brevity “I&B Code” against the respondent Stata Mater Investments Limited & Anr. seeking the reliefs, waivers and concession.
4. Factual Matrix:
4.1 The Corporate Debtor, M/s Varrsana Ispat Limited, was admitted into corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by order dated 18.07.2017 passed by this Tribunal. On failure of the resolution process, liquidation proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 06.08.2019, and Mr. Anil Goel was appointed as the Liquidator.
4.2 Prior to the commencement of CIRP, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, had initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against certain promoters and directors of the Corporate Debtor. In connection with the same, immovable and movable properties of the Corporate Debtor were provisionally attached under Section 5 of the PMLA by way of Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 08/2017/1071 dated 10.07.2017.
4.3 The Provisional Attachment Order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA by its order dated 28.11.2017. Thereafter, the attached properties were continued to be held by the ED even after initiation of CIRP and liquidation.
4.4 In order to secure the value of the Corporate Debtor’s assets and complete the liquidation process effectively, the Liquidator filed IA No. 575/KB/2020 under Section 35(1)(n) of the IBC seeking permission to include the attached properties in the liquidation estate and to sell them in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
4.5 This Tribunal, vide order dated 22.07.2020, granted liberty to the Liquidator to proceed with the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, including the properties attached by the ED, subject to the outcome of any proceeding in higher judicial forum.
4.6 The said order dated 22.07.2020 was challenged by the ED by way of Writ Petition No. 7962 of 2020 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, which granted an interim stay on the operation of this Tribunal’s order.
4.7 The Liquidator filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4629 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the maintainability of the writ petition. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 26.03.2021, granted liberty to the Liquidator to raise the issue of maintainability before the High Court.
4.8 In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299, the interim order of stay granted by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court got vacated on 31.03.2021.
4.9 Thereafter, the Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee (SCC), in its meetings dated 17.06.2022, 29.08.2022, and 03.11.2022, resolved to proceed with the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Pursuant to these resolutions, the Liquidator initiated an e-auction process.
4.10 In the e-auction conducted on 17.03.2023, Stata Mater Investments Ltd. emerged as the highest bidder with a bid amount of Rs. 409.20 crores. A Letter of Intent was issued on 06.04.2023 by the Liquidator, and the successful bidder has already remitted a portion of the consideration amount.
4.11 As per Clause 8.2 of the Auction Process Document, the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern requires confirmation and approval by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, the present application is filed by the Liquidator seeking approval of the sale in favour of the successful bidder, and further directions for transferring the Corporate Debtor free from prior liabilities, and extinguishing all claims not assumed by the successful bidder.
5. Submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant:
5.1 The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Anil Goel, the Liquidator of Varrsana Ispat Limited, submitted that the application was filed under Section 35(1)(n) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Regulation 32A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, for appropriate directions from this Tribunal to implement the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern in favour of the successful bidder, Stata Mater Investments Limited.
5.2 It was contended that the assets of the Corporate Debtor had been attached by the Directorate of Enforcement under PAO No. 08/2017/1071, dated 10.07.2017, and that the said attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA on 28.11.2017. The Applicant had previously challenged the confirmation of the said attachment before the Appellate Authority, which remains pending.
5.3 The Applicant also highlighted that prior efforts to seek de-attachment of the assets under Section 14 of the IBC were dismissed by the Tribunal and subsequently by the Hon'ble NCLAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Applicant submitted that these dismissals occurred during a time of legislative ambiguity between the provisions of IBC and PMLA.
5.4 After the insertion of Section 32A in the IBC through the 2020 Amendment, the Applicant filed I.A. No. 575/KB/2020 seeking permission to proceed with the sale of the Corporate Debtor, including the attached assets. This Tribunal, vide order dated 22.07.2020, allowed the sale. However, the said order was stayed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 7962/2020 on 20.11.2020.
5.5 Aggrieved by the stay, the Applicant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4629/2021, where liberty was granted to raise the issue of maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court. Despite filing for urgent hearing, the matter was not taken up, and in terms of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI, the stay lapsed on 31.03.2021.
5.6 The Applicant thereafter apprised the Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee (SCC) in its 10th, 11th, 12th, and 16th meetings regarding the proposed sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The SCC approved the auction process, and an e-auction was conducted on 17.03.2023, wherein Stata Mater Investments Limited emerged as the highest bidder at Rs. 409.20 crores.
5.7 The Applicant submitted that the auction was conducted in a transparent manner with 255 rounds of bidding and that the successful bidder fulfilled the eligibility criteria under Section 29A of the Code. The LOI was issued on 06.04.2023 pursuant to the 16th SCC meeting.
5.8 It was further submitted that Section 35(1)(e) of the IBC mandates the Liquidator to manage the business of the Corporate Debtor for its beneficial liquidation. The Applicant stated that the business had been kept functional, and that the sale as a going concern preserves jobs and value.
5.9 The Applicant referred to the 2018 report of the Insolvency Law Committee and the judicial pronouncement in Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. to assert that the sale as a going concern avoids dissolution and supports value maximization.
5.10 Relying on Regulation 32(e) of the Liquidation Regulations and judicial precedents such as V.K. Global v. SMAAT India Pvt. Ltd. and Bank of Baroda v. Topworth Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., the Applicant urged that the Tribunal should approve the sale and grant immunity to the successful bidder under Section 32A.
5.11 The Applicant finally prayed for issuance of directions to the RoC to change the status of the Corporate Debtor from "in liquidation" to "active" and reflect the new shareholding and directorship structure, as well as for a direction to the ED to hand over possession of the attached assets to the Liquidator for completing the transaction.
6. Per Contra the respondent would allege as under:
6.1 The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, Stata Mater Investments Limited, submitted that the Respondent is the successful bidder in the auction process initiated by the Liquidator for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. It was clarified that the Respondent has been impleaded pro forma to facilitate the execution of the sale and seeks reliefs associated with the same.
6.2 It was submitted that the e-auction for the sale of the Corporate Debtor was conducted in March 2023 and the Respondent was declared the successful bidder. Pursuant to this, the Respondent remitted a sum of Rs. 112.76 crores towards part-payment and entered into a Letter of Intent dated 06.04.2023. The sale process is contingent upon final approval by this Adjudicating Authority.
6.3 The Respondent placed on record that, as a foreign entity, it is required to comply with extant foreign exchange regulations, including the filing of requisite forms within a six-month period from the date of remittance. The delay in concluding the transaction due to pending judicial approvals creates regulatory impediments. It was therefore imperative that the sale be confirmed by this Tribunal to avoid any breach of foreign exchange compliance.
6.4 During the earlier hearing on 09.08.2023, this Tribunal raised a query as to whether its approval was required in view of its prior order dated 22.07.2020 in IA No. 575/KB/2020. The Respondent submitted that the final consummation of the sale as a going concern requires a fresh and specific confirmation from this Tribunal as per the terms of the E-Auction Process Document and relevant legal provisions.
6.5 It was further submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement had challenged the Tribunal's order dated 22.07.2020 by filing Writ Petition No. 7962/2020 before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, which granted an ad-interim stay. Thereafter, the Applicant filed SLP (C) No. 4629/2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the maintainability of the writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 26.03.2021, granted liberty to the Applicant to raise the maintainability issue before the High Court, and requested that the issue be treated as a preliminary one.
6.6 The Respondent pointed out that no hearing was held in the said writ petition after the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and in terms of the ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI, the interim stay stood vacated on 31.03.2021. Consequently, there exists no judicial restraint on this Tribunal to confirm the sale.
6.7 The Respondent highlighted the necessity of seeking directions under Section 35(1)(f) and (n) of the IBC, which authorizes the Liquidator, subject to the directions of the Adjudicating Authority, to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor and seek necessary orders. It was argued that a sale as a going concern, involving transfer of liabilities, change of management, and replacement of shareholding, mandates judicial oversight and confirmation.
6.8 It was submitted that the E-Auction Process Document dated 17.03.2023 (Document No. EAUCTION/DOC/GC/2023/2) specifically requires a Final Approval Order from this Tribunal for the sale to be considered complete. Clause 8.2 of the said document mandates such confirmation for effectuating changes including extinguishment of existing shares, issue of new shares, and granting immunity from prior liabilities not assumed by the bidder.
6.9 The Respondent contended that in absence of such confirmation, the Liquidator would be in breach of the auction terms and the Respondent would be placed in a position of uncertainty, thereby affecting its regulatory obligations and commercial commitments.
6.10 The Respondent emphasized that the nature of the reliefs sought in the present application go beyond mere settlement of claims and involve revival and continuation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. It falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, which empowers it to decide questions of priority, law or fact arising out of liquidation proceedings.
6.11 Reliance was placed on precedents from NCLT Hyderabad and Mumbai Benches where similar reliefs were granted to successful bidders in liquidation sales as going concerns. The Respondent referred to the case laws cited by the Liquidator in paras 86, 87 and 88 of the Application and adopted the same.
7. Rejoinder of the applicant:
7.1 The Applicant, by way of rejoinder, submits that the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent No. 2 Directorate of Enforcement are misconceived and do not bar this Tribunal from proceeding with the application under the IBC framework. The Applicant reiterates that the Provisional Attachment Order dated 10.07.2017 under the PMLA was passed prior to the commencement of CIRP and is subject to adjudication under proceedings still pending before the appropriate forums.
7.2 The Applicant emphasizes that CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 16.11.2017 and Liquidation was ordered on 06.08.2019. Despite the ED’s possession and attachment of assets, the Liquidator has been acting diligently within the scope of the Code, including multiple efforts before this Tribunal and higher courts to secure possession and proceed with the Liquidation process.
7.3 The Applicant points out that Section 32A was introduced into the IBC via the 2019 Amendment Ordinance, which explicitly immunizes the Corporate Debtor and its assets in the hands of a bona fide purchaser such as the successful bidder here from prosecution or attachment for pre-CIRP offences, provided the bidder meets the disqualifications laid down therein.
7.4 The Applicant, therefore, submits that no new legal impediments have been raised by the Respondent that were not already adjudicated or accounted for in the previous orders of this Tribunal or in the process laid out under the Code. Hence, the Tribunal is empowered to proceed with the confirmation of the sale and grant the reliefs sought in the application.
8. Analysis and Findings
8.1 The primary issue arising for consideration before this Adjudicating Authority is whether, in light of the pending attachment of the Corporate Debtor’s assets by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), this Tribunal can confirm the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to the successful bidder under the IBC.
8.2 It is not in dispute that the CIRP was initiated on 18.07.2017 and Liquidation was ordered on 06.08.2019. The Provisional Attachment Order was issued by the ED on 10.07.2017 and was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA on 28.11.2017. Thus, the asset attachment preceded the liquidation, and the properties continued to remain under attachment.
8.3 We note that this Tribunal had earlier, by its order dated 22.07.2020 in I.A. No. 575/KB/2020, granted liberty to the Liquidator to proceed with the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, including the assets under attachment. That order was challenged by the ED before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, which granted an interim stay. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299, has held that interim orders passed by High Courts in writ jurisdiction are to be treated as vacated if not extended explicitly within six months. Thus, the interim stay lapsed on 31.03.2021.
8.4 In the absence of any subsisting stay, and in view of the rights conferred upon the Liquidator under Sections 35(1)(e) and 35(1)(f) of the Code to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor, and the procedural mandate under Regulation 32 and 32A of the Liquidation Regulations, the Liquidator’s action to initiate and conclude the sale process cannot be faulted.
8.5 Further, Section 32A of the Code, inserted through the 2019 Amendment, provides a statutory shield to the Corporate Debtor and the assets in the hands of the successful bidder from liability for offences committed prior to the initiation of CIRP, provided the successful bidder is not a related party or involved in the alleged offence. The successful bidder, Stata Mater Investments Limited, has furnished the requisite affidavits and satisfies the conditions laid out in Section 32A.
8.6 We are conscious of the arguments the objectives of the IBC, which are to ensure timely resolution or liquidation and maximization of value of assets which may be defeated if liquidation proceedings are held hostage to prior attachments.
8.7 The Hon’ble NCLAT in Directorate of Enforcement v. Manoj Kumar Agarwal and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Nitin Jain v. Enforcement Directorate have both upheld the precedence of the IBC process and the Liquidator’s rights under the Code in the face of PMLA attachment, so long as the assets are part of the liquidation estate.
8.8 It is noted that the bid amount is of Rs. 409.20 crores and there is the approval of the Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee with 100% voting.
8.9 Accordingly, we permit the Liquidator to complete the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to Stata Mater Investments Limited. Immunity under Section 32A of the Code shall operate in favour of the successful bidder, and the appropriate authority under PMLA under have to be approached for appropriate relief in regard to the assets shall not proceed against the assets sold pursuant to this process.
9. We would reply on the following judgments in support of the reliefs that would be granted:
a) Janvi Dixit vs. M/s Hi-Tech Services, I.A. No. 741 o f 2021 in C.P. (IB) No. 1319/MB/2017, Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court No. – I (para. 6)
b) Gaurav Jain V/s Sanjay Gupta – 2021 SCC Online NCLT 489, (para. 20, 25, 26, 28,29, 30, & 34).
c) Nitin Jain, Liquidator of PSL Ltd. vs. Lucky Holdings Pvt. Ltd. – 2021 SCC Online NCLT 3108 (para. 15, 29, 30, 36-42).
d) Jasamrit Designers Pvt.Ltd vs. Mr. Gian Chand Narang & Anr- 2023 SCC Online NCLAT 334 Paragraphs 10 and 11 which recognises the right of a successful bidder to seek reliefs and concessions.
e) Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt Ltd v Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd 2021 SCC OnLine SC 313 decided on 13.04.2021 on extinguishment of past liabilities of the Corporate Debtor.
f) Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd , reported as 2025 INSC 621 Paragraph 31 that the NCLAT’s observations and findings regarding the PAO dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under PMLA are held to be coram non judice, having been made without jurisdiction and legal authority.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) has laid down the law in regard to the extinguishment of past liabilities of the Corporate Debtor once the resolution plan is approved. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once a resolution plan has been duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to section 31(1), the claims specified in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and be binding upon the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government, or any local authority, guarantors, and other stakeholders. All such claims that are not included in the resolution plan must be extinguished as of the day the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan, and no individual shall have the right to begin or continue any proceedings with respect to a claim that is not included in the resolution plan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further ruled that, if not covered by the resolution plan, all debts to the Central Government, any State Government, or any local authority shall stand extinguished and that no further legal action may be taken to collect those debts for the time period prior to the date the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31.
11. The relevant extract of the Ghanshyam Mishra judgment(supra) in this regard is given below:
“61. All these details are required to be contained in the information memorandum so that the resolution applicant is aware, as to what are the liabilities, that he may have to face and provide for a plan, which apart from satisfying a part of such liabilities would also ensure, that the Corporate Debtor is revived and made a running establishment. The legislative intent of making the resolution plan binding on all the stake-holders after it gets the seal of approval from the Adjudicating Authority upon its satisfaction, that the resolution plan approved by CoC meets the requirement as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30 is, that after the approval of the resolution plan, no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant. The dominant purpose is, that he should start with fresh slate on the basis of the resolution plan approved.
62. This aspect has been aptly explained by this Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory (supra).
“107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment [Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 388] in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count.”
12. It is to be noted that the primary goal of a resolution plan as well as the sale of a Corporate Debtor as a going concern remains the same i.e revival of the Corporate Debtor’s business. The struggles faced by the purchaser during the sale of a Corporate Debtor as a ‘going concern’ and that of the Successful Resolution Applicant are similar, if not the same. As such, comparable reliefs and concessions ought to be granted in both cases. As such, the law laid down in Ghanashyam Mishra (Supra) ought to be made applicable to cases in which the Corporate Debtor has been sold as ‘going concern’.
13. In Nitin Jain (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has succinctly clarified the following:
“4 9 .Undisputedly and as has been explained in the decisions of the Supreme Court noticed above, maximization of value would be clearly impacted if a resolution applicant were asked to submit an offer in the face of various imponderables or unspecified liabilities. The amendment to sub-Section (1) of Section 31 and the introduction of Section 32A undoubtedly seek to allay such apprehensions and extend an assurance of the resolution applicant being entitled to take over the corporate debtor on a fresh slate. Section 32A assures the resolution applicant that it shall not be held liable for any offense that may have been committed by the corporate debtor prior to the initiation of the CIRP. It similarly extends that warranty in respect of the properties of the corporate debtor once a resolution plan stands approved or in case of a sale of liquidation assets.”
14. At this juncture would also be apt to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the matter of Jasamrit Designers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Gian Chand Narang & Anr. the Appellate Tribunal has in paragraph 10 allowed the filing of application before the Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of claiming relief/concessions/direction which “may be necessary for operationalisation of the Corporate Debtor as per terms and conditions of the process document”.
15. However, the following paragraph of the said judgment specifies in this regard that the successful bidder can only make such prayers for reliefs and concessions which are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the process document and not such prayers which are “too elaborate and general”. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of Jasamrit Designers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) being contextual are reproduced hereinafter:
“10. In view of the subsequent facts and notices brought on record by the Appellant and other terms and conditions of the process document as extracted, we are of the view that ends of justice will be served in granting liberty to file an Application before the Adjudicating Authority claiming reliefs/concessions/directions which may be necessary for operationalisation of the Corporate Debtor as per terms and conditions of the process document.
11. We may also observe that prayers which were included in I.A. No. 3207 of 2022 were too elaborate and general prayers which cannot be made by a Successful Bidder who have been declared as Successful Bidder. Successful Bidder on e-Auction of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern can make only such prayers for reliefs/concessions which are commensurate and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the process document. Prayers in general in a very wide term as contained in I.A. No. 3207 of 2022 may not require any consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.”
16. In light of the legal propositions extracted supra we would proceed to consider the reliefs and concessions prayed for and which we dispense of:
17. With the above directions, IA(IB)No. 1061/KB/2023 in C.P (IB) No. 543/KB/2017 is disposed of.
18. The registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to the board and all the parties and their learned counsel for information and for taking necessary steps.
19. Certified copies of this order, if applied for with the Registry of this Adjudicating Authority, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
---------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment