Provisional Attachment Under PMLA Subsequent To Initiation Of CIRP: Supreme Court To Consider The Issue

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sarawagi v Enforcement Directorate & Anr.

Case no.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 30092/2022

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka, has permitted the CIRP of Corporate Debtor to be conducted on 'as is where is' and 'whatever there is' basis, during the pendency of a petition challenging the provisional attachment order passed against the Corporate Debtor under PMLA. The Bench has cautioned that the Resolution Plan shall not be approved by the Adjudicating Authority without the permission of the Supreme Court. The issue in the petition concerns whether an order of provisional attachment passed under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA") would prevail over Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") or not, if the said order has been passed subsequent to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP").

NCLAT

Net Worth Of Transferor & Transferee Company Being Highly Positive, Consent Of Secured Creditors Not Required For Amalgamation: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Lasa Supergenerics Limited v Harishree Aromatics & Chemicals Private Limited

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No. 82 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that in cases where the net worth of the Transferor and Transferee Companies are highly positive, it is not required to seek consent of secured creditor for amalgamation. In place of seeking a No Objection Certificate from Secured Creditor, the Bench has directed the Secured Creditor to file an objection to the Scheme of Amalgamation, if any, within 30 days.

Section 96(1)(B) Of IBC Does Not Stay Any Future Liability Or Obligation: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Ashok Mahindru & Anr. v Vivek Parti

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1324 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that Section 96(1)(b) of IBC does not stay any future liability or obligation. The Bench declined to stay proceedings under Section 19(2) and Section 66-67 of IBC initiated against the Personal Guarantors in another insolvency petition, in view of interim moratorium imposed under Section 96 of IBC in insolvency proceedings against the Personal Guarantors.

NCLAT Approves Sugar Farmers As Separate Creditors Group In The Sugar Industry Resolution Plan

Case Title: Excel Engineering & Ors. v Mr. Vivek Murlidhar Dabhade & Anr.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 85-86 of 2020

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has urged the Government and the IBBI to examine some minimum entitlement to Operational Creditors based on the amount realised in the Resolution Plan over and above the liquidation value.

Objections Raised By Corporate Debtor To Oppose Section 9 Petition Not To Be A Moonshine Defence: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Krishna Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1375 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the only question to be looked in Section 9 petition is whether the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor opposing claim of the Operational Creditor is not a moonshine defense. The Bench observed that contracts provide for dispute resolution mechanism for contractual disputes arising between the Parties during the contract period. The dispute between the parties are not supposed to be decided, examined and adjudicated in IBC proceeding.

No Fetter, Embargo Or Legal Impediment For A Trust To Be A Resolution Applicant: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: M/s. Aswathi Agencies v Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 179 of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Kanthi Narahari (Technical Member), has held that there is no fetter, embargo or any legal impediment for a Trust to become a Resolution Applicant. "To put it precisely, the word `Person', is defined as per Section 3 (23) (d) of the I & B Code, 2016, which includes a `Trust', therefore, there is no `Fetter' / `Embargo' or a `Legal Impediment', for a `Trust', to be a `Resolution Applicant', in submitting a `Resolution Plan' (in the present case), the candid fact, is that the `Successful Resolution Applicant' / `Lessie Medical Institutions', being a `Registered Charitable Trust', under the `Indian Trust Act, 1882'), in `Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process', in the cocksure earnest opinion of this `Tribunal'.”

Compromise Doubtful, Only To Benefit Related Parties, NCLAT Delhi Upholds Liquidation Of CD

Case Title: Bankey Bihari Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Alok Kumar Kuchchal & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 718 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to proceed with liquidation of Corporate Debtor as the Scheme of Compromise & Arrangement submitted by the Appellant appeared to be doubtful and ostensibly to appropriate the land to the benefit of related parties of the Corporate Debtor. The Bench observed that the purported Scheme proposed to make payments to a number of related parties, unsecured creditors and those who had not submitted claims, upto an extent of 100% of admitted claimed amounts. It was further proposed to make payments within 90 days of approval of scheme. Whereas, in the event of auction-sale, the payments would be made promptly to claims in accordance with the 'waterfall mechanism' under section 53 of IBC.

Section 66 Of IBC Does Not Provide For Any Look Back Period For Fraudulent Transactions: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Mr. Thomas George v K. Easwara Pillai & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (At)(Ch) (Insolvency) No. 293 Of 2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), has held that the Section 66 of IBC does not provide for any look back period as far as fraudulent transactions are concerned. "Unlike other types of transactions provided under the Code, there is no specified look back period for fraudulent trading under Section 66. Hence, the Resolution Professional is allowed to retrieve/repossess without any limitation of time and correct all the wrong doings for any relevant point of time. Section 66 of the Code envisages that the losses caused to the Creditors are recovered in the event of the Liquidation and that the Directors who caused such losses are made liable to make good such losses."

IBC Does Not Prohibit An Assignee From Continuing Pending Section 7 Proceedings: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Siti Networks Ltd. v Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1449 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that there is no prohibition in the IBC or any of the Regulations from continuing the proceeding by an assignee. Section 5(7) of the IBC which defines 'Financial Creditor' also includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred to. By virtue of assignment, an assignee becomes the Financial Creditor and it has every right to continue the proceeding which was initiated by the original Financial Creditor/Assignor.

High Tension Electricity Connection Of CD Cannot Be Restored Unless Security Deposit Is Paid: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Kalptaru Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 866 of 2020

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the Corporate Debtor is not entitled for restoration of high tension electricity connection without making payment of security deposit. The Bench observed that the Adjudicating Authority had rightly concluded that security deposit is a pre-condition for sanction of High Tension Power Connection to industries. The Applicant being a heavy industry huge power supply is required. The security deposit is only to adjust the shortfalls which come in payment of bills.

AA Shall Either Approve Or Reject The Resolution Plan, No Power To Modify It: NCLAT Delhi

Case Title: Mathuraprasad C Pandey & Ors. v Partiv Parikh & Anr.

Case No.: COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(Ins) No.201/2021

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member), has held that when a Resolution Plan is presented before the Adjudicating Authority for approval, it is clear mandate of legislation to either approve or to reject the Resolution Plan. There is no provision under IBC which empowers the Adjudicating Authority for making alteration or modification in the Resolution Plan.

AA Empowered To Remove The Liquidator: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: CA V. Venkata Sivakumar v IDBI Bank Limited & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 269/2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that the Adjudicating Authority has the power to remove the Liquidator. The Bench held that no Liquidator has any personal rights to continue in Liquidation and the Adjudicating Authority can order for replacement of the Liquidator, recording sufficient reasons as per Law. “Further, since the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, is vested with the power, to `appoint a Liquidator’, under Section 33 and 34 of the I & B Code, 2016. It is by the virtue of the Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, that an ‘Adjudicating Authority’, who also, has the power, to remove the `Liquidator’.”

NCLAT Delhi Sets Aside CCI Order Giving Clean Chit To DLF, Remands Matter To CCI For Fresh Consideration

Case Title: Amit Mittal v DLF Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: COMPETITION APPEAL (AT) NO.82 OF 2018

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member), has set aside the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") giving clean chit to DLF and its subsidiary in allegations of abuse of dominant position. The CCI order was based on a supplementary report submitted by the Director General. The Bench held that CCI can only direct further investigation in a case of closure and not where DG has submitted report showing contravention of Competition Act 2002 by party(s).

NCLT

RP Cannot Pursue An Avoidance Application After Approval Of Resolution Plan By The AA: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: State Bank of India v Ushdev International Limited

Case No.: C.P (IB) No. 1790/MB/C-II/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Justice P.N. Deshmukh (Judicial Member) and Mr. Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member), has held that the Resolution Professional cannot carry the hat of the "Former Resolution Professional" and pursue an avoidance Application in respect of preferential transaction after the change of hands in the management of the Corporate Debtor. The Bench has rejected the avoidance application which was filed prior to approval of Resolution Plan but was being heard post approval.

Central Government Notifies The Posting Of Newly Appointed NCLT Members

The central government vide its order dated 02.12.2022 notified the posting of newly appointed NCLT Members.

The posting of judicial members is as follows;

a. Justice (Retd.) T Krishna Vali- Bengaluru

b. Kuldeep Kunar Kareer- Mumbai

c. Ashok Kumar Bhardawaj- New Delhi

d. Praveen Gupta- Allahabhad

e. Bidisha Banerjee- Kolkata

The Posting of Technical Members is as follows:

a. Prabhat Kumar- Mumbai

b. Charan Singh-Hyderabad

c. Anu Jagmohan Singh-Mumbai

d. Ashish Verma-Allahabhad

e. Atul Chaturvedi- New Delhi.

Earlier, the Central Govt. notified the appointment of 15 new members for NCLT but only 10 members took oath and joined so far. After these appointments, the working strength of NCLT rises to 38 members as against the sanctioned strength of 63 members. Recently, the Central Government informs the Supreme Court that after the appointment of these 15 members process for appointment of other 19 vacancies is under process.

NCLT New Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad & Kolkata Benches Re-Constituted W.E.F 5th December 2022

File No.: 10/03/02/2022-NCLT

The Benches of National Company Law Tribunal, have been re-constituted vide a Circular dated 03.12.2022 issued by NCLT. The re-constitution has been done in accordance with the Circular of Ministry of Corporate Affairs bearing A22012/6/2021-Ad IV MCA dated 02.12.2022, whereby the Government had notified appointment of new NCLT Members. The re-constitution is effective from 05.12.2022 is subject to modification as and when other Members join. The matters shall be heard through physical mode, except for Benches where Members are presiding from different Benches or as per permission taken from Judicial Member. It has been further clarified that the part heard matters and specially ordered matters will continue to be heard by the same Bench till disposal.

NCLT New Delhi, Court Room No. 2 (Full Day)

1. Shri Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (Judicial Member)
2. Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member)

NCLT New Delhi, Court Room No. 3 (First Half)

1. Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member)

NCLT New Delhi, Court Room No. 5 (First Half)

1. Shri Patibandla Satyanarayana Prasad (Judicial Member)
2. Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha (Technical Member)

NCLT New Delhi, Court Room No. 6 (Second Half)

1. Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Rahul Prasad Bhatnagar (Technical Member)

Hyderabad Bench

NCLT Hyderabad, Court Room No. 1 (First Half)

1. Dr. VRB Nandula (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member)

NCLT Hyderabad, Court Room No. 2 (Second Half)

1. Justice (Retd.) Telaprolu Rajani (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Charan Singh (Technical Member)

Kolkata Bench

NCLT Kolkata, Court Room No. 2 (Second Half)

1. Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member)

Mumbai Bench

NCLT Mumbai, Court Room No. 4 (Full Day)

1. Shri Kishor Vemulapalli (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member)

NCLT Mumbai Benches Re-Constituted W.E.F 7th December 2022

File No.: 10/03/2022-NCLT

The Mumbai Benches of National Company Law Tribunal, have been re-constituted vide a Circular dated 06.12.2022 issued by NCLT. The re-constitution has been done in accordance with the Circular of Ministry of Corporate Affairs bearing A22012/6/2021-Ad IV MCA dated 02.12.2022, whereby the Government had notified appointment of new NCLT Members.

The re-constitution is effective from 07.12.2022 is subject to modification as and when other Members join. The matters shall be heard through physical mode, except for Benches where Members are presiding from different Benches or as per permission taken from Judicial Member. It has been further clarified that the part heard matters and specially ordered matters will continue to be heard by the same Bench till disposal.

The re-constituted NCLT Mumbai Benches shall comprise of:

NCLT Mumbai, Court Room No. 3 (Second Half)

1. Shri Venkata Subba Rao Hari (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member)

NCLT Mumbai, Court Room No. 5 (First Half)

1. Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial Member)
2. Ms. Anuradha Bhatia (Technical Member)

No Clause For Payment Of Interest, OC Can't Add Interest Only To Cross Threshold Limit Of 1 Crore: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: Khatunaresh Impex Pvt. Ltd. v Jindal (India) Limited

Case No.: C.P. (IB)/291(KB)2022

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Kolkata Bench, comprising of Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has held that in absence of any contract or agreement between Parties which provides for payment of interest to the Operational Creditor alongwith principal amount, the Operational Creditor cannot claim interest in Section 9 proceedings merely to cross the threshold limit of Rs. One Crore.

NCLT Allahabad Bench Re-Constituted W.E.F 12th December 2022

File No.: 10/03/2022-NCLT

The Allahabad Bench of National Company Law Tribunal, has been re-constituted vide a Circular dated 07.12.2022 issued by NCLT. The re-constitution has been done in accordance with the Circular of Ministry of Corporate Affairs bearing A22012/6/2021-Ad IV MCA dated 02.12.2022, whereby the Government had notified appointment of new NCLT Members.

The re-constitution is effective from 12.12.2022 is subject to modification as and when other Members join. The matters shall be heard through physical mode, except where Members are presiding from different Benches or as per permission taken from Judicial Member. It has been further clarified that the part heard matters and specially ordered matters will continue to be heard by the same Bench till disposal.

The re-constituted NCLT Allahabad Bench shall comprise of:

NCLT Allahabad Bench

1. Shri Praveen Gupta (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Ashish Verma (Technical Member)

Claim Based On An Uninvoked Bank Guarantee Liable To Be Rejected By RP: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Mrs. Bhanu Navin Nisar v Vijay Group Realty LLP

Case No.: C.P. 4359/I&B/MB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Mumbai Bench, comprising of Shri H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Smt. Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia (Technical Member), has held that a Resolution Professional is legally liable to reject the claim of a creditor arising out of an uninvoked Bank Guarantee.

NCLT Delhi Imposes Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh On Suspended Director

Case Title: Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) v Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: C.P. (IB) 1913 (ND)/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), New Delhi Bench, comprising of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri L.N. Gupta (Technical Member), has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh upon the Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor (Applicant) for instituting multiple proceedings seeking same reliefs and wasting precious judicial time. It was held that, "The Application is barred by the doctrine of Res Sub-Judice. Since, the applications have resulted in multiplicity of proceedings and in wastage of precious judicial time, we discourage such practice. The Application is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) only to be deposited by the Applicant herein in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 15 days, the receipt of which shall be filed with the NCLT Registry."

Unregistered Partnership Firm Cannot Initiate Insolvency Proceedings Under IBC: NCLT Kochi

Case Title: The Bangalore Sales Corporation v Sark Spice Products Pvt Ltd.

Case No.: CP (IBC)/37/KOB/2022.

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kochi Bench, comprising of Shri. P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member) and Shri. Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member), has held that an unregistered Partnership Firm cannot institute insolvency proceedings under IBC. The Bench observed that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 bars the unregistered partnership firm or any of the partners of said unregistered firm to file any suit against any third parties. The word “court” is defined in Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the same “Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. As per this definition this Tribunal also comes under the purview of court. The proceeding before the Tribunal is a suit attracts section 69(2) of Partnership Act 1932.

HIGH COURT

Gujarat High Court Refuses Former NCLT Member's Plea For Re-Appointment

Case Title: Manorama Kumari v Union of India

Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 23268 Of 2022

The Gujarat High Court Bench comprising of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, has rejected the plea of a former NCLT Member for re-appointment as a Judicial Member of NCLT, after having served a term of 5 years and being retired. The Bench held that re-appointment is not a vested right for the Petitioner. "Merely because the Petitioner has shown her willingness to be considered, merely because she is liable to be considered and merely because she has opted for reappointment, could not be ground to seek writ from the Court that her appointment process may be completed."

Gujarat High Court Stays IBBI Order Directing IP To Undergo 4 Months Of Probation

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Agarwal S/O. Kishan Lal Agarwal Versus Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)

Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 24566 Of 2022

The High Court of Gujarat Bench comprising of Justice Biren Vaishnav has stayed the operation of an order passed by Disciplinary Committee of IBBI, directing an Insolvency Professional to undergo 4 months of probation under other experienced insolvency professionals. "Even in the summary findings where the order of the adjudicating authority is quoted, it is made out that it was not the case that the C.O.C had raised any dissatisfaction with regard to the conduct of the petitioner or that there had been a lapse on his part."

Invoking CIRP Would Not Make The Dispute Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt Ltd

Case No.: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

The High Court of Delhi Bench comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has held that the dispute would not become non-arbitrable merely because the Petitioner, before filing the application for appointment of arbitrator, has filed a corporate insolvency application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Court rejected the argument that since the petitioner has filed insolvency application which can only be filed for admitted debt and there can be no arbitration for admitted debts. The Court held that it is settled position of law that jurisdiction of NCLT can be invoked only in respect of determined debts, however, merely because a petition has been by the petitioner asserting that a definite amount is payable by the respondent, would not imply that the claimed amount has been admitted. The Court held that when the respondent has constantly denied its liability to pay, the claimed amount does not transfer into an admitted debt and petitioner can invoke arbitration for resolving the dispute.

Object of S.60(2) IBC Is To Group Together CIRP/ Liquidation Proceedings Before Single Forum: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Alliance Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation),

Case No.: CS 54 of 2019, 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 372

The Calcutta High Court Bench comprising of Justice Krishna Rao while adjudicating a petition has ruled that the object of Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is to group together Corporate Insolvency Resolution process (CIRP) or liquidation proceedings of a corporate debtor and insolvency resolution/ liquidation/ bankruptcy proceedings of the corporate or personal guarantor of the same corporate debtor before a single forum i.e., the National Company Law Tribunal. The Bench reasoned that the provision intended to ensure both of the said proceedings did not proceed before different fora which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of interest.

Moratorium Under Companies Act, 2013, Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DLF Ltd. versus IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company

Case No.: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1209

The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao has ruled that the moratorium granted by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process is initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, is akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Thus, in view of the moratorium issued by the NCLAT, the Corporate Debtor cannot be referred to arbitration.