Ruchi Soya Industries Limited

Total plan funding, as printed

Rs.4,350 crores aggregate infusion into SPV (Rs.4,235 crores towards settlement of creditors/stakeholders + Rs.115 crores towards equity infusion for improving operations)

Payout horizon as printed

On or around the Closing Date, which shall not be more than 75 days from the Effective Date

Plan term as printed

Term of the Plan commences on the Effective Date and continues until the Closing Date

CIRP cost, as printed

Actuals as approved by the CoC (specific amount not disclosed in the Plan; RP directed by the Bench to submit a detailed breakup of the actual CIRP cost before the next date of listing)

Cirp cost treatment

To be paid in full and in priority to any claim of any other creditor, as on the Closing Date, out of the internal accruals/cash flow of the Corporate Debtor; Closing Date not more than 75 days from the Effective Date; CoC Costs to be fully borne by the CoC except Rs.2 crores to be paid by the Corporate Debtor out of internal accruals/cash flow on or prior to the Closing Date, not counted as part of IRP cost

Performance security

Rs.150,00,00,000/- (Performance Deposit)

Performance security instrument

cash

Earnest money deposit

Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Earnest Money Deposit, in two tranches)

Units note

Figures printed mostly in Rs. Crores in the tables and narrative

Figures printed mostly in Rs. Crores in the tables and narrative

Body of order · 9 rows

1. Seq

   1

   Beneficiary

   CIRP/IRP Costs

   Amount as printed

   Actuals as approved by the CoC

   Timing as printed

   In full, in priority to any claim of any other creditor, by the Closing Date (not more than 75 days from the Effective Date), out of internal accruals/cash flow of the Corporate Debtor

2. Seq

   2

   Beneficiary

   CoC Costs (excess over what CoC bears itself)

   Amount as printed

   Rs.2 crores

   Timing as printed

   Paid by the Corporate Debtor out of internal accruals/cash flow on or prior to the Closing Date

3. Seq

   3

   Beneficiary

   Secured Financial Creditors

   Amount as printed

   Rs.4,053.19 crores

   Timing as printed

   On or around the Closing Date, pari passu among all secured Financial Creditors

4. Seq

   4

   Beneficiary

   Workmen and Employee dues

   Amount as printed

   Rs.14.92 crores (maximum)

   Timing as printed

   On the Closing Date, in priority to Financial Creditors

5. Seq

   5

   Beneficiary

   Unsecured Financial Creditors (other than related parties)

   Amount as printed

   Rs.40.00 crores

   Timing as printed

   On or around the Closing Date

6. Seq

   6

   Beneficiary

   Statutory Dues (Government Authorities)

   Amount as printed

   Rs.25.00 crores (or liquidation value allocable, whichever higher)

   Timing as printed

   On or around the Closing Date

7. Seq

   7

   Beneficiary

   Operational Creditors (unrelated parties)

   Amount as printed

   Rs.90.00 crores (or liquidation value allocable, whichever higher)

   Timing as printed

   By the Closing Date, not more than 75 days from the Effective Date, in priority to Financial Creditors

8. Seq

   8

   Beneficiary

   Counter-guarantee/100% margin for uninvoked bank guarantees

   Amount as printed

   Rs.11.89 crores

   Timing as printed

   Provided by SPV/its bankers to prevent invocation/enable renewal or roll-over, to maintain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern

Entity type

consortium

Consortium members

1. Patanjali Ayurved Limited
2. Divya Yog Mandir Trust (through its business undertaking, Divya Pharmacy)
3. Patanjali Parivahan Pvt Ltd
4. Patanjali Gramudhyog Nyas

Sources of funds

Equity infusion by Resolution Applicant in SPV Rs.204.75 crore (from Performance Deposit of Rs.150,00,00,000 + Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.50,00,00,000 = Rs.200 crore, plus Rs.4.75 crore from internal accruals); Non-Convertible Debentures subscribed by Resolution Applicant in SPV Rs.450 crore and Preference shares subscribed by Patanjali Ayurved Limited (PAL) in SPV Rs.450 crore, sourced from a Rs.300 crore Bank of Baroda in-principle sanction letter to PAL and the remaining Rs.600 crore from internal funding/accruals/cash flow of the consortium entities; New Debt infusion/arrangement in SPV of Rs.3,233.36 crore via in-principle sanction letters from State Bank of India (Rs.3,300 crore to Patanjali Consortium) and Union Bank of India (Rs.600 crore to SPV-Patanjali Consortium); Rs.11.89 crore for providing counter-guarantee/100% margin/replacement of existing uninvoked bank guarantees; Total aggregate Rs.4,350.00 crore. The Bench found (para 95) a wide gap between the Rs.600 crore internal-accrual source stated in the Plan and the actual funds evidenced by CA certificates/bank statements (aggregating approx. Rs.145 crore: PAL Rs.75 crore, Divya Pharmacy Rs.65 crore, Patanjali Parivahan Rs.2.26 crore, Patanjali Gramudyog Nyas Rs.2 crore), and directed the RP/Resolution Applicant to bridge this gap before the next listing

Post plan management

Proposed nominated Board members: Shri Acharya Balkrishna, Shri Ram Bharat, and Smt. Sneh Bharat; existing senior management personnel to be retained, with additional key managerial personnel to be appointed to strengthen operations

Statutory dues

Verified/admitted claim of Rs.44.96 crore; maximum of Rs.25 crore or the liquidation value allocable towards statutory dues, whichever higher, proposed to be paid to Government Authorities; all such claims to stand extinguished upon receipt of the proposed amount pursuant to approval of the Plan

Operational creditors

Total admitted/verified claim Rs.2,716.61 crore, of which only Rs.14,31,62,68,911/- (approx. Rs.1,431.63 crore) is claimed by unrelated parties; unrelated-party Operational Creditors (excluding Workmen/Employee Dues and Statutory Dues) to be paid a maximum of Rs.90 crore or the liquidation value allocable, whichever higher, pro-rata against verified amount, in priority to Financial Creditors, by the Closing Date (not more than 75 days from the Effective Date); Liquidation Value due to operational creditors was stated to be not known to the Resolution Applicant at the time of Plan submission; amounts proposed distributed only among unrelated parties

Workmen employees

Payment proposed on the Closing Date, in priority to Financial Creditors; recurring workmen/employee dues continue to be paid on a periodical basis by the Resolution Professional in the interim; maximum Rs.14.92 crore = 100% of amounts duly verified and outstanding as on the Effective Date, or the proportionate liquidation value allocable, whichever higher, subject to the Rs.14.92 crore cap; any shortfall of actual dues against the Rs.14.92 crore cap, and any surplus in uninvoked bank-guarantee allocation, to be additionally paid to Secured Financial Creditors

Litigation carveout

Suspension Period relief (extension of a moratorium-type bar on suits/enforcement/recovery till the Closing Date) sought under Clause 8.1.1 was declined as an impermissible extension of the statutory moratorium; relief for termination of conflicting third-party intellectual-property arrangements was allowed, without the Tribunal adjudicating the underlying ownership dispute over RSIL's intellectual property (including pending arbitration petition no. MJC AV/0000023/2018), which continues per law unaffected by this order

Assets description

Intellectual property rights (brands, trademarks, copyrights per Schedule 9 of the Plan) owned by RSIL, valued at approximately 28% of Non-Current Assets per the audited financial statements for FY ended 31 March 2017, described as a material asset comprising a considerable portion of the price quoted under the Resolution Plan; going-concern edible oil/agri-processing business

Going concern status

Corporate Debtor to continue on a going concern basis; Monitoring Committee/Monitoring Agent to manage operations in the ordinary course during the Term (from the Effective Date until the Closing Date)

Interim resolution professional

Mr. Shailendra Ajmera

RP replaced the IRP

No

Invitations for expressions of interest

1. Round no

   1

   Form g date

   2018-02-05

   Expressions of interest received

   28

   Plans received

   4

   Outcome

   plan approved

Applicants considered

1. Name

   Adani Wilmar Limited (AWL)

   Stage reached

   withdrawn

   Vote pct

   96.85

   Outcome note

   CoC approved AWL's plan by 96.85% vote share (13th CoC meeting; e-voting 22-23.8.2018); RP filed MA 926/2018 for its approval on 24.8.2018; Supreme Court in V.K. Jain v. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. (order dated 31.1.2019) directed the CoC to reconsider all plans afresh with objecting creditors participating, interdicting the AWL approval; RP subsequently withdrew MA 926/2018, dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 7.2.2019

2. Name

   Patanjali Consortium (Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Divya Yog Mandir Trust/Divya Pharmacy, Patanjali Parivahan Pvt Ltd, Patanjali Gramudhyog Nyas)

   Stage reached

   approved

   Plan value as printed

   Rs.4,350 crore aggregate infusion; Rs.4,235 crore to creditors/stakeholders

   Vote pct

   96.95

   Outcome note

   Plan re-submitted to e-voting after Supreme Court directive (e-voting 26.4.2019 8pm to 30.4.2019 8pm); approved by CoC with 96.95% voting share on 30.4.2019; approved by this Tribunal on 24.7.2019, subject to conditions and further affidavit

3. Name

   Godrej Agrovet Limited (Godrej)

   Stage reached

   plan_submitted

   Outcome note

   Submitted a resolution plan by the 2.5.2018 deadline; on review, the plan did not provide for resolution of the Corporate Debtor as a whole and on a going concern basis, unlike AWL's and Patanjali's plans; not carried into the negotiation round

4. Name

   Emami Agrotech Limited (Emami)

   Stage reached

   plan_submitted

   Outcome note

   Submitted a resolution plan by the 2.5.2018 deadline; on review, the plan did not provide for resolution of the Corporate Debtor as a whole and on a going concern basis, unlike AWL's and Patanjali's plans; not carried into the negotiation round

5. Name

   3F

   Stage reached

   eoi

   Outcome note

   Communicated interest to participate but neither deposited the 1st and 2nd tranche EMD (aggregating Rs.50 crore) nor submitted a resolution plan

6. Name

   Sakuma

   Stage reached

   eoi

   Outcome note

   Communicated interest to participate but neither deposited the 1st and 2nd tranche EMD (aggregating Rs.50 crore) nor submitted a resolution plan

7. Name

   Agrocorp

   Stage reached

   eoi

   Outcome note

   Communicated interest to participate but neither deposited the 1st and 2nd tranche EMD (aggregating Rs.50 crore) nor submitted a resolution plan

8. Name

   South India

   Stage reached

   eoi

   Outcome note

   Communicated interest to participate but neither deposited the 1st and 2nd tranche EMD (aggregating Rs.50 crore) nor submitted a resolution plan

Bidding mechanism

negotiation

Evaluation matrix present

Yes

Clock events

1. Kind

   extension

   Days

   90

   Granted date

   2018-06-08

   Reason

   CIRP period extension under Section 12 of the Code, on RP's application based on CoC resolution, as the CIRP period was expiring

2. Kind

   exclusion

   Granted date

   2019-01-31

   Reason

   Supreme Court in V.K. Jain v. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. directed that time utilised in the SC/NCLAT proceedings be excluded from the CIRP period, per ArcelorMittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Advisors

1. Role

   valuer

   Name

   T.R. Chadha & Co. LLP

   Note

   Registered Valuer appointed on 21.12.2017 to determine the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor

2. Role

   valuer

   Name

   GAA Advisory

   Note

   Registered Valuer appointed on 21.12.2017 to determine the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor

Dissenting fcs

1. DBS Bank Ltd., Singapore

Dissenting fc treatment

Pari passu/uniform distribution among all secured Financial Creditors, recovery proportionate to approx. 48.39% of admitted debt for each; DBS Bank's request for differential treatment based on its superior/exclusive first charge over specific assets (Baran, Guna, Daloda, Gadarwara, Mumbai, Kandla) was put to a vote by show of hands in the 22nd CoC meeting (23.4.2019) and rejected by all other CoC members, and DBS's application (MA 1746/2019) seeking to set aside the pari passu distribution decision was dismissed by this Tribunal as not maintainable, following the NCLAT ruling in Jyoti Structures that similarly situated Financial Creditors must be treated similarly

Section 30(2)(b) minimum stated

No

Business & treatment of stakeholders

SPV to be amalgamated with and into the Corporate Debtor on and from the Closing Date; Resolution Applicant's funds (equity, Non-Convertible Debentures, preference shares, new debt) infused via the SPV

Merger or amalgamation

Yes

Monitoring committee

During the period between the Effective Date and the Closing Date, comprises 3 representatives of the Financial Creditors, 3 representatives of the Resolution Applicant, and the Monitoring Agent (Mr. Shailendra Ajmera, the erstwhile RP, to act as Monitoring Agent till the Closing Date); Resolution Applicant has the right to appoint a non-voting observer entitled to receive notices/agendas/minutes and attend meetings; Monitoring Committee to supervise implementation of the Plan, appoint advisors/legal/technical consultants, and monitor management and operations of the Company in the ordinary course on a going concern basis

Monitoring committee members

1. Name

   Mr. Shailendra Ajmera

   Role

   Monitoring Agent (till the Closing Date)

1. Seq

   1

   Relief

   Suspension Period in effect till the Closing Date (bar on institution/continuation of suits or legal proceedings, foreclosure/recovery/enforcement of security interest, and recovery of property) - Clause 8.1.1

   Category

   other

   Disposition

   declined

   Reason

   The relief is in effect to extend the moratorium beyond the statutory period under the I&B Code, which cannot be granted and is hence denied

2. Seq

   2

   Relief

   CBDT to exempt income/gain/profit arising from giving effect to the Plan from tax including MAT; book losses from asset write-off to be set off against future book profits - Clause 8.1.5

   Category

   tax

   Disposition

   deferred_to_authority

   Reason

   The Resolution Applicant has to comply with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other directions issued by the relevant authority under the Act; Ministry of Finance press release dated 06.01.2018 on MAT exemption for insolvent companies noted

3. Seq

   3

   Relief

   Governmental Authorities to waive stamp duty, filing fees, tax payable/becoming payable on transactions/actions under the Plan, including increase in authorized share capital and stamp duty on amalgamation of the SPV with the Corporate Debtor - Clauses 8.1.7 & 8.1.13

   Category

   stamp_duty

   Disposition

   declined

   Reason

   We are not inclined to allow the said relief. The Resolution Applicant may apply to the relevant regulatory authority for this exemption and the relevant authority may consider it as per law

4. Seq

   4

   Relief

   Unilateral right of modification, change or termination of contracts entered by the Corporate Debtor with related or unrelated parties or existing promoters - Clause 8.1.10

   Category

   contracts

   Disposition

   declined

   Reason

   No unilateral right of modification, change, or termination of contract can be allowed. However, the Resolution Applicant may modify, change or terminate any contract as per the due process of law

5. Seq

   5

   Relief

   Adjudicating Authority to conclusively adjudicate ownership/usage of intellectual property rights (Schedule 9, including arbitration petition no. MJC AV/0000023/2018) in favour of RSIL, and to terminate/abate any conflicting third-party IP arrangements from the Effective Date

   Category

   litigation_immunity

   Disposition

   conditional

   Reason

   The said relief is allowed [as to termination of conflicting third-party arrangements] however it is clarified that we have not adjudicated any question of law or fact or any application/petition filed in relation to ownership and/or usage by RSIL of the intellectual property rights, including arbitration petition no. MJC AV/0000023/2018, and such proceedings shall follow their complete course as per law without being affected by this order

6. Seq

   6

   Relief

   General/catch-all reliefs where the underlying contract/agreement/understanding/proceeding/notice etc. is not specifically identified, or which relate to a future or contingent liability

   Category

   other

   Disposition

   declined

   Reason

   Any relief sought for in the Resolution Plan, where the contract/agreement/understanding/proceedings/actions/notice etc. is not specifically identified or is for future and contingent liability, is at this moment rejected

1. Objector

   DBS Bank Ltd., Singapore

   Objector class

   financial_creditor

   Ground

   Challenged the manner of distribution of Resolution Plan proceeds; sought differential (rather than pari passu) treatment among secured Financial Creditors based on the superior value/quality of its exclusive first charge over specific assets at Baran, Guna, Daloda, Gadarwara, Mumbai and Kandla; sought to restrain distribution pending disposal of its application

   Ia number

   MA 1746/2019

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected as not maintainable; Tribunal held, following NCLAT's ruling in Jyoti Structures, that similarly situated Financial Creditors must be treated similarly; pari passu distribution among secured Financial Creditors upheld; overall Resolution Plan approval proceeded

2. Objector

   ICICI Bank Limited

   Objector class

   financial_creditor

   Ground

   Aggrieved by RP/CoC's refusal to admit ICICI's increased claim (contingent on its having to reverse Rs.65.98 crore under this Tribunal's Section 43 order dated 12.03.2019, under appeal before NCLAT) and refusal to set aside/escrow the differential amount pending that appeal

   Ia number

   MA 1816/2019

   Disposition

   dismissed

   Effect on approval

   Rejected and disposed of; Tribunal declined to make observations as the underlying matter was sub judice before NCLAT (Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.370 of 2019); CoC's approval and appropriation of the Rs.65.98 crore within the Plan treated as the CoC's considered decision

3. Objector

   Resolution Professional

   Objector class

   rp

   Ground

   Sought relaxation of the Regulation 39(4) timeline for filing the CoC-approved Resolution Plan with the Adjudicating Authority

   Ia number

   MA 1428/2019

   Disposition

   allowed

   Effect on approval

   Allowed as unopposed; Tribunal held that CIRP Regulation timelines are directory, not mandatory

1. Date

   2019-07-24

   What

   Bench directed the Resolution Professional/Resolution Applicant to bridge the gap between the Rs.600 crore source of funds stated in the Plan and the actual available funds evidenced by CA certificates/bank statements (approx. Rs.145 crore), and to provide the exact source of funds before the next date of listing (1.8.2019)

2. Date

   2019-07-24

   What

   Resolution Professional directed to submit a detailed breakup of the actual CIRP cost (not previously mentioned in the Plan) and details of remuneration payable to Mr. Shailendra Ajmera for discharging duties as Monitoring Agent, before the next date of listing (1.8.2019)

Applications

1. Sections

   Section 43

   Respondents

   ICICI Bank Limited

   Amount as printed

   Rs.65.98 crores

   Status

   allowed

   Proceeds treatment

   Bench ordered ICICI to reverse Rs.65.98 crores debited from the Corporate Debtor's current account concerning maturing Letters of Credit, by order dated 12.03.2019, and directed the CoC to decide on appropriation of the amount; ICICI's appeal against this order is pending before NCLAT (Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.370 of 2019) with an interim direction not to force ICICI to return the amount; the Resolution Plan appropriates this Rs.65.98 crore on the premise it will be reversed and repaid to the Corporate Debtor

Conditions imposed

1. Condition

   Resolution Applicant to obtain necessary approvals required under any law for the time being in force within one year from the date of this order, or within such period as provided for in such law, whichever is later

   Addressed to

   Resolution Applicant

2. Condition

   Resolution Professional/Resolution Applicant directed to bridge the gap in source-of-funds information and provide the exact source of funds for the stated Rs.600 crore, before the next date of listing (1.8.2019)

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional/Resolution Applicant

3. Condition

   Resolution Professional directed to submit a detailed breakup of the actual CIRP cost, and details of remuneration to be paid to Mr. Shailendra Ajmera as Monitoring Agent, before the next date of listing (1.8.2019)

   Addressed to

   Resolution Professional

4. Condition

   Additional affidavit to be filed by the Resolution Applicant accepting the modifications made to the Resolution Plan by this order, and other directed information, listed for 1.8.2019

   Addressed to

   Resolution Applicant

Approval conditional on external order

No

Appellate history

Supreme Court in V.K. Jain v. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8430 of 2018, order dated 31.1.2019) interdicted the CoC's earlier approval of AWL's resolution plan and directed the CoC to reconsider all resolution plans afresh with objecting creditors as participants, following ArcelorMittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.; this Tribunal's order dated 7.2.2019 directed compliance with that Supreme Court order, and MA 926/2018 (seeking approval of AWL's plan) was dismissed as withdrawn on the same date

Precedents cited

1. Case

   V.K. Jain v. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.8430 of 2018, order dated 31.01.2019

   Proposition

   Time utilised in litigation excluded from the CIRP period; CoC directed to reconsider resolution plans afresh with objecting creditors participating

2. Case

   ArcelorMittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.; Civil Appeal Nos.9402-9405/2018, decided 04.10.2018

   Proposition

   Time utilised in proceedings excluded from the CIRP period; Resolution Professional's role limited to ensuring completeness of resolution plans, not deciding their merits or law-compliance conclusively

3. Case

   K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank; Civil Appeal No.10673/2018, order dated 5.2.2019

   Proposition

   No provision in the I&B Code empowers the Resolution Professional, Adjudicating Authority, or Appellate Authority to reverse the 'commercial decision' of the CoC

4. Case

   Binani Industries Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda; NCLAT order dated 14.11.2018

   Proposition

   Approval of a Resolution Plan lies in the domain of the CoC, not the Resolution Professional; RP is not to be blamed if the Plan does not satisfy a particular claim so long as it meets mandatory contents and complies with the Code

5. Case

   Ashutosh Koul and 814 other employees of Jyoti Structures Ltd. v. DBS Bank Ltd. and Others; Company Appeal (AT)(Insol.) Nos.461, 464 and 548 of 2018, order dated 19.03.2019

   Proposition

   All Financial Creditors are to be treated similarly if similarly situated; a first-charge holder's claim to differential treatment among secured creditors rejected; further appeal to Supreme Court (Civil Appeal Nos.3434-3436 of 2019, dated 15.04.2019) dismissed as lacking merit

6. Case

   Srei Equipment Finance Limited v. Sree Metaliks Limited; NCLAT Company Appeal (AT)(Insol.) No.289 of 2017, order dated 13.12.2018

   Proposition

   Regulation 38(1)(b) and (c), mandating liquidation value to Operational Creditors or dissenting Financial Creditors, is inconsistent with the I&B Code and Section 240(1); a plan providing such liquidation value without other reason to discriminate between similarly situated creditor classes cannot be approved

7. Case

   Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, RP of Essar Steel Ltd. & Ors.; NCLAT Company Appeal (AT)(Ins)-242 of 2019, judgment dated 04.07.2019

   Proposition

   Concerned the manner of distribution of funds in a resolution plan; distinguished on facts, since operational creditors here (unlike in Essar) are not given NIL/0% and no operational creditor opposes this Plan

8. Case

   IDBI Bank v. Mamta Binani and Ors.; NCLT Hyderabad Bench, CP (IB) No.41/7/HDB/2017, order dated 09.05.2019

   Proposition

   Financial Creditors holding higher-value security may be given a higher proportion from the resolution fund than those with lower-value or no security, without this amounting to discrimination

9. Case

   Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd v. Union of India; Writ Petition (Civil) No.99/2018, order dated 25.1.2019

   Proposition

   The primary objective of the I&B Code is revival and continuation of the Corporate Debtor, not liquidation; the Resolution Professional has administrative, not quasi-judicial, powers

10. Case

    Binani Cement Ltd (Binani Industries); NCLAT order dated 14.11.2018

    Proposition

    The Code is not a statute for recovery; Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act applies only at enforcement/liquidation, not at resolution plan distribution

11. Case

    Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors v. B. Karunakar and Ors.; (1993) 4 SCC 727

    Proposition

    A new legal principle laid down by a court ordinarily operates prospectively, not retrospectively

Judicial observations

1. Even during the hearings, the Bench had sought exact/detailed source of funds for the resolution plan, inspite of the same, the information submitted is short of source of funds & there is a wide gap between the source of funds mentioned in the Plan and the actual available funds as per the records submitted. (p.42)
2. Further, the Resolution Professional has not mentioned the actual CIRP cost. The Resolution Professional is directed to submit detailed breakup of the CIRP Cost before the next date of listing. (p.42)
3. This bench cannot allow any general power to any resolution applicant absolving him of liability of the corporate debtor company without knowing about the liability against which such exemption is sought. (p.22)

1. Case number

   MA 1428/2019

   Outcome line

   Allowed - relaxation of the Regulation 39(4) filing timeline granted as unopposed

2. Case number

   MA 1746/2019

   Outcome line

   Rejected as not maintainable - DBS Bank's challenge to the pari passu distribution mechanism among secured Financial Creditors dismissed

3. Case number

   MA 1816/2019

   Outcome line

   Rejected and disposed of - ICICI Bank's application concerning its contingent increased claim dismissed, without observations, given the pending NCLAT appeal

Companies named in the order

1. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited

Order date

2019-07-24