1. Bank of India, Registered Office at: Star House, G Block, Plot No. C5, Bandra Kurla Complex (East), Mumbai. Howrah Zonal Office At 5, BTM Sarani, Kolkata 700001. ...Respondent No. 1 2. Surya Kantasatapathy, Interim Resolution Professional of Suryadeep Multipurpose Cold Storage LLP Address : MMS Chamer, Room No. 12, 4A, Council House Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001. ...Respondent No. 2 Present For Appellant: Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Snehashish Chakraborty & Ms. Akanksha Kaushik. For Respondents: Mr. Namit Suri along with Mr. Ravi (CS), for R 1. 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 161 of 2023 JUDGEMENT ( 19.03.2024) NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 1. The present Appeal i.e., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 161 of 2023 has been filed against the Impugned Order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, CourtI, Kolkata (in short 'Adjudicating Authority') in CP (IB) No. 623/ KB/ 2020 where the application of the Respondent No. 1 Bank of India ( in short 'Financial Creditor') under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') was admitted and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (in short 'CIRP') was initiated. 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Kolay is the Appellant herein who was the Designated Partner of Suryadeep Multipurpose Cold Storage LLP (in short 'Corporate Debtor') 3. Heard the Counsel for the Parties and perused the records made available including the cited judgements. 4. The undisputed fact of the case is that the around 2012, the Corporate Debtor requested for credit facilities including the terms loan, cash credit facility and bank guarantee for an overall limit of Rs. 8.01 Crores from the Respondents which was sanctioned on 26.09.2012. It has been brought out that this overall credit facilities limit was enhanced/ renewed/ modified from time to time, based on the request of the Corporate Debtor and finally overall limit was sanctioned on 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 161 of 2023 26.09.2019 of Rs. 20.78 Crores comprising of Terms Loan I, Term Loan II, cash credit limit and bank guarantee. 5. The Appellant stated that while utilising the credit facilities, business of the Corporate Debtor suffered due to recession and poor market conditions and therefore, the Corporate Debtor could not meet its liability towards the Respondents. 6. The Appellant also mentioned that the Corporate Debtor is MSME entity and is entitled to get benefit of restructuring of its loan accounts in terms of RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016 and according to the Corporate Debtor approached the Respondent for restructuring. 7. It is the case of the Appellant that after restructuring, the debt was not due on alleged default dates claimed by the Respondent, as such the admission of Section 7 application by the Adjudicating Authority was illegal and perverse. 8. It is also the case of the Appellant that the date of default has not been correctly reflected in the application filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Respondents and therefore, the application should have been summarily rejected. 9. The Appellant also stated that the letter of restructuring dated 30.03.2019 clearly indicated that the repayment schedule was to commence from December 2019 and was to end in march 2029 with moratorium period of 7 months and the interest was to be served on monthly basis as and when applied with regard to 4 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 161 of 2023 FITL, WCTLI and WCTLII facility, the repayment was to commence from May 2020 and end with 12 months moratorium period. The Appellant pleaded that despite such clear terms of restructuring of loan accounts, the Respondent deliberately classified the loan accounts of the Corporate Debtor as NonPerforming Assets (in short 'NPA') on 30.09.2019 even when the repayment schedu