1. The applications being Company Applications Nos. 3, 15 & 4 of 2018 filed by the interveners are allowed, the applicants being interested persons or having stakes in the insolvency resolution process and liquidation of the Company before this Court, which is the Corporate Debtor before the National Company Law Tribunal.

2. Company Application No. 10 of 2017 : This application has been filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the “Act of 1956) in Company Petition No. 6 of 2012 by the Resolution Professional on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, Murli Industries Limited, seeking leave to proceed with or continue with the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution process of the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with rules and regulations framed thereunder, before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. Similar applications under Section 446 of the Act of 1956 have been filed by the Resolution Professional being Company Applications No. 13 of 2017, 14 of 2017 and 15 of 2017 in connected Company Petitions.

3. The facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant for the present purpose, are stated in brief as follows :

(a) The creditors of the Corporate Debtor have filed the present Company Petition No. 6 of 2012 as also Company Petitions Nos. 8, 9, 10 of 2011, 3 & 10 of 2012 for winding up of the Corporate Debtor under Section 433 (e) read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 because of inability of the Corporate Debtor to pay its debts.

(b) In all these petitions, by the order passed by this Court on 21.3.2017, this Court appointed respondent no. 2, attached to this Court, as the Provisional Liquidator directing him to take charge of all the property and effects of the Corporate Debtor with immediate effect. It may be pointed out here that there is no dispute about the fact that the winding up petitions having been served upon the Corporate Debtor under rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 before the cutoff date, have not been transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and have been retained by this Court.

(c) One of the financial creditors of the Corporate Debtor, viz. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (EARC) filed an application, registered as C.P. No. 66/I&BP/NCLT/MAH/2017, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, the “IBC”) before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against the Corporate Debtor. By an order dated 5th April 2017, the NCLT admitted the application filed by the EARC and thus initiated the insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor. It appointed the present applicant Vijaykumar Iyer as an Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP” for short). Pursuant to the Admission Order, the IRP published a Public Announcement dated 12th April 2017 as per Section 13 of the IBC read with Regulation 6(2)(b)(I) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (for short the “Regulations, 2016) in English and Marathi newspapers calling for submission of claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The IRP also took necessary steps in the matter in terms of the provisions of the IBC read with Regulations, 2016 and he was later on also appointed as the Insolvency Resolution Professional in terms of Section 22 of the IBC.

(d) While all this was going on under the provisions of the IBC, it appears, the Resolution Professional was not aware of the order dated 21.3.2017 passed by this Court appointing a provisional liquidator in respect of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional was made aware of the same by the former Director of the Corporate Debtor Bajranglal Maloo, on 10th May 2017. The Resolution Professional almost immediately thereafter swung into action and addressed a communication dated 12th May 2017 to respondent no. 2 apprising him of various facts such as