REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7121 OF 2022

M. Suresh Kumar Reddy   …Appellant

versus

Canara Bank & Ors.                  ...Respondents

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1.The   respondent­Bank   filed   an   application   under

Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for

short,   ‘the   IB   Code’)   before   the   National   Company   Law

Tribunal, Hyderabad, Telangana.  The said application was

filed against a Corporate Debtor M/s Kranthi Edifice Pvt.

Ltd.   The   present   appellant   claims   to   be   a   suspended

Director of the Corporate Debtor.  National Company Law

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 1 of 23 2023 INSC 521

Tribunal (for short, ‘NCLT’), by an Order dated 27

th

  June

2022,   admitted   the  application  filed  by  the   respondent­

Bank and declared a moratorium for the purposes referred

in Section 14 of the IB Code.  The appellant claiming to be

an aggrieved person preferred an appeal against the said

Order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

(for short, ‘NCLAT’).  By the impugned judgment dated 5th

August 2022, NCLAT has dismissed the appeal. 

2.The first respondent, Canara Bank is the successor of

Syndicate Bank, which made application under Section 7 of

the IB Code to NCLT.  Syndicate Bank was merged into the

first respondent­Canara Bank.   A letter of sanction dated

2

nd

  April 2016 was issued by Syndicate Bank by which

credit facilities were sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor for

one­year   valid   up   to   28

th

  February   2017.   A   Secured

Overdraft   Facility   of   Rs.   12   crores   was   granted   by   the

Syndicate   Bank,   apart   from   sanctioning   the   Bank

Guarantee   limit   of   Rs.   110   crores.   Thus,   the   facilities

granted by the Syndicate Bank to the Corporate Debtor

were fund­based (Overdraft Facility) and non­fund­based

(Bank Guarantees). 

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 2 of 23

3.In the application under Section 7 of the IB Code, the

Syndicate Bank stated that as on 30

th

 November 2019, the

liability of the corporate debtor under the Secured Overdraft

Facility   was   Rs.74,52,87,564.93.     The   liability   of   the

Corporate Debtor towards outstanding Bank  Guarantees

was Rs.19,16,20,100.

4.On 21

st

 October 2022, this Court while issuing notice,

recorded   a   statement   of   the   learned   senior   counsel

appearing for the appellant that a proposal for settlement

under a One­Time Settlement Scheme has been submitted

to the first respondent­Bank and a sum of Rs.6 crores has

been deposited with the first respondent­Bank.  Eventually,

the said proposal was turned down by the first respondent­

Bank.    Therefore, the  present  appeal  was taken up for

hearing. 

SUBMISSIONS

5.The   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the

appellant submitted that repeated efforts were made to have

one­time   settlement   of   the   dues   payable   to   the   first

respondent.  But the said request was not acceded to.  He

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 3 of 23

relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Vidarbha

Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited

1

.   He

submitted   that   even   assuming   that   the   existence   of

financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate

Debtor   was   established,   the   NCLT   was   not   under   an

obligation to admit the application under Section 7.   For

good   reasons,   NCLT   could   have   refused   to   admit   the

application under Section 7 of the IB Code.  He also fairly

pointed out the Order dated 22

nd

 September 2022 passed by

this Court in a Review Petition seeking a review of the

decision in the case of Vidarbha Industries

1

.

6.He   invited   our   attention   to   the   correspondence

between the Government of Telangana and the Syndicate

Bank.   There   were   contracts   granted   by   the   Telangana

Government   to   the   Corporate   Debtor.     He   invited   our

attention to a letter dated 5

th

 November 2018 addressed by

the  Executive Engineer on behalf  of the  Government of

Telangana   requesting   the   Bank   to   extend   the   Bank

Guarantees furnished by the said Bank on the request of

the   Corporate   Debtor.     Similarly,   by   a   letter   dated   7

th

August 2019, the Government of Telangana requested the

Syndicate Bank to extend 29 Bank Guarantees mentioned

1 2022 (8) SCC 352

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 4 of 23

in the said letter.  He pointed out that the Corporate Debtor

addressed a letter to the Bank on 9

th

  January 2020 by

which a request was made to extend the Bank Guarantees.

He also invited the attention of the Court to a letter dated

8

th

  January   2020   addressed   by   the   Government   of

Telangana to the Bank requesting the Bank to extend the

seven Bank Guarantees mentioned therein.  He submitted

that   notwithstanding   the   requests   made   by   the   State

Government,   Syndicate   Bank   did   not   extend   the   Bank

Guarantees.   Thus, in a sense, the failure of the Bank to

extend the Bank Guarantees forced the Corporate Debtor to

commit default. He submitted that the Bank is responsible

for triggering the default.  The learned counsel invited our

attention to the interim order dated 24

th

 April 2020 passed

by the learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court by

which the first respondent­Bank was restrained from taking

coercive steps pursuant to letters of invocation of Bank

Guarantees including handing over of Demand Drafts to the

State Government.  He urged that in the teeth of this order,

NCLT ought not to have admitted the application under

Section 7.

7.Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent­

Bank firstly pointed out that the decision in the case of

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 5 of 23

Vidarbha Industries

1

 is in peculiar facts of that case, as is

explained by the same Bench while disposing of the Review

Petition.  He submitted that the decision of this Court in the

case of E.S. Krishnamurthy and others v. Bharath Hi­

Tecch Builders Private Limited

2

 still holds the field.  He,

therefore, submitted that once NCLT is satisfied that there

is a financial debt and a default has occurred, it is bound to

admit an application under Section 7.  He submitted that

the request made by the Corporate Debtor for extension of

the   Bank   Guarantees   was   specifically   rejected   as

communicated by the first respondent by a letter dated 18

th

January   2021   addressed   to   the   Corporate   Debtor.   He

would, therefore, submit that there is no error committed

by NCLT in admitting application under Section 7.

OUR VIEW

8.We   have   given   careful   consideration   to   the

submissions.     This   Court   in   the   case   of  Innoventive

Industries   Limited   v.   ICICI   Bank   and   Another

3

 has

explained the scope of Section 7.  Paragraph nos.28 to 30 of

the said decision read thus:­

2 (2022) 3 SCC 161

3 (2018) 1 SCC 407

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 6 of 23

“28. When   it   comes   to   a   financial

creditor triggering the process, Section

7   becomes   relevant.   Under   the

Explanation to Section 7(1), a default

is in respect of a financial debt owed

to any financial   creditor   of   the

corporate debtor — it need not be a

debt owed to the  applicant  financial

creditor.   Under   Section   7(2),   an

application is to be made under sub­

section (1) in such form and manner

as is prescribed, which takes us to the

Insolvency   and   Bankruptcy

(Application to Adjudicating Authority)

Rules,   2016.   Under   Rule   4,   the

application   is   made   by   a   financial

creditor   in   Form   1   accompanied   by

documents   and   records   required

therein. Form 1 is a detailed form in 5

parts, which requires particulars of the

applicant in Part I, particulars of the

corporate debtor in Part II, particulars

of   the   proposed   interim   resolution

professional in Part III, particulars of

the   financial   debt   in   Part   IV   and

documents,   records   and   evidence   of

default in Part V. Under Rule 4(3), the

applicant is to dispatch a copy of the

application filed with the adjudicating

authority by registered post or speed

post   to   the   registered   office   of   the

corporate   debtor.   The   speed,   within

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 7 of 23

which the adjudicating authority is to

ascertain   the   existence   of   a   default

from   the   records   of   the   information

utility   or   on   the   basis   of   evidence

furnished by the financial creditor, is

important. This it must do within 14

days of the receipt of the application. It

is at the stage of Section 7(5), where

the   adjudicating   authority   is   to   be

satisfied that a default has occurred,

that the corporate debtor is entitled to

point   out   that   a   default   has   not

occurred in the sense that the “debt”,

which   may   also   include   a   disputed

claim, is not due. A debt may not be

due if it is not payable in law or in fact.

The   moment   the   adjudicating

authority is satisfied that a default

has occurred, the application must

be admitted unless it is incomplete,

in which case it may give notice to

the applicant to rectify the defect

within 7 days of receipt of a notice

from   the   adjudicating   authority.

Under sub­section (7), the adjudicating

authority shall then communicate the

order passed to the financial creditor

and corporate debtor within 7 days of

admission   or   rejection   of   such

application, as the case may be.

29. The scheme of Section 7 stands in

contrast   with   the   scheme   under

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 8 of 23

Section   8   where   an   operational

creditor   is,   on   the   occurrence   of   a

default, to first deliver a demand notice

of the unpaid debt to the operational

debtor   in   the   manner   provided   in

Section 8(1) of the Code. Under Section

8(2), the corporate debtor can, within a

period   of   10   days   of   receipt   of   the

demand notice or copy of the invoice

mentioned in sub­section (1), bring to

the notice of the operational creditor

the existence of a dispute or the record

of the pendency of a suit or arbitration

proceedings, which is pre­existing—i.e.

before   such   notice   or   invoice   was

received by the corporate debtor. The

moment there is existence of such a

dispute, the operational creditor gets

out of the clutches of the Code.

30. On   the   other   hand,   as   we   have

seen,  in   the   case   of   a   corporate

debtor who commits a default of a

financial   debt,   the   adjudicating

authority   has   merely   to   see   the

records of the information utility or

other   evidence   produced   by   the

financial   creditor   to   satisfy   itself

that a default has occurred. It is of

no matter that the debt is disputed

so   long   as   the   debt   is   “due”   i.e.

payable unless interdicted by some

law or has not yet become due in

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 9 of 23

the sense that it is payable at some

future date. It is only when this is

proved   to   the   satisfaction   of   the

adjudicating   authority   that   the

adjudicating authority may reject an

application and not otherwise.”

(emphasis added)

9.The view taken in the case of Innoventive Industries

3

has   been   followed   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of  E.S.

Krishnamurthy and others

2

.   Paragraph nos.32 to 34 of

the said decision read thus: 

32.In Innoventive   industries  

[Innoventive   Industries

Ltd. v. ICICI Bank,   (2018)   1   SCC   407,

paras 28 and 30 : (2018) 1 SCC (Civ)

356], a two­Judge Bench of this Court

has explained the ambit of Section 7

IBC, and held that the adjudicating

authority   only   has   to   determine

whether a “default” has occurred i.e.

whether the “debt” (which may still

be disputed) was due and remained

unpaid. If the adjudicating authority

is of the opinion that a “default” has

occurred,   it   has   to   admit   the

application unless it is incomplete.

Speaking through Rohinton F. Nariman,

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 10 of 23

J., the Court has observed: (SCC pp.

438­39, paras 28 & 30)

“28. When it comes to a financial

creditor   triggering   the   process,

Section 7 becomes relevant. Under

the Explanation to Section 7(1), a

default is in respect of a financial

debt   owed   to   [Ed. :   The   word

between   two   asterisks   has   been

emphasised in original.] any [Ed. :

The   word   between   two   asterisks

has been emphasised in original.]

financial creditor of the corporate

debtor — it need not be a debt

owed   to   the   applicant   financial

creditor.   Under   Section   7(2),   an

application is to be made under

sub­section (1) in such form and

manner   as   is   prescribed,   which

takes   us   to   the   Insolvency   and

Bankruptcy   (Application   to

Adjudicating   Authority)   Rules,

2016.   Under   Rule   4,   the

application is made by a financial

creditor   in   Form 1   accompanied

by   documents   and   records

required   therein.   Form 1   is   a

detailed   form   in   5   parts,   which

requires   particulars   of   the

applicant in Part I, particulars of

the   corporate   debtor   in   Part   II,

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 11 of 23

particulars of the proposed interim

resolution professional in Part III,

particulars of the financial debt in

Part   IV   and   documents,   records

and evidence of default in Part V.

Under Rule 4(3), the applicant is

to   dispatch   a   copy   of   the

application   filed   with   the

adjudicating   authority   by

registered   post   or   speed   post   to

the   registered   office   of   the

corporate   debtor.   The   speed,

within   which   the   adjudicating

authority   is   to   ascertain   the

existence   of   a   default   from   the

records of the information utility

or   on   the   basis   of   evidence

furnished by the financial creditor,

is   important.   This   it   must   do

within 14 days of the receipt of the

application. It   is   at   the   stage   of

Section   7(5),   where   the

adjudicating   authority   is   to   be

satisfied   that   a   default   has

occurred, that the corporate debtor

is   entitled   to   point   out   that   a

default   has   not   occurred   in   the

sense that the “debt”, which may

also include a disputed claim, is

not due. A debt may not be due if it

is not payable in law or in fact. The

moment the adjudicating authority

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 12 of 23

is   satisfied   that   a   default   has

occurred, the application must be

admitted unless it is incomplete, in

which case it may give notice to the

applicant   to   rectify   the   defect

within 7 days of receipt of a notice

from   the   adjudicating   authority.

Under   sub­section   (7),   the

adjudicating authority shall then

communicate the order passed to

the   financial   creditor   and

corporate debtor within 7 days of

admission   or   rejection   of   such

application, as the case may be.

*           *          *

30. On the other hand, as we

have   seen, in   the   case   of   a

corporate debtor who commits

a default of a financial debt,

the adjudicating authority has

merely to see the records of the

information   utility   or   other

evidence   produced   by   the

financial   creditor   to   satisfy

itself   that   a   default   has

occurred. It is of no matter that

the debt is disputed so long as

the debt is “due” i.e. payable

unless interdicted by some law

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 13 of 23

or has not yet become due in

the sense that it is payable at

some   future   date.   It   is   only

when   this   is   proved   to   the

satisfaction of the adjudicating

authority that the adjudicating

authority   may   reject   an

application and not otherwise.”

33. In   the   present   case,   the

adjudicating authority noted that it had

listed   the   petition   for   admission   on

diverse   dates   and   had   adjourned   it,

inter alia, to allow the parties to explore

the   possibility   of   a   settlement.

Evidently, no settlement was arrived at

by all the original petitioners who had

instituted   the   proceedings.   The

adjudicating authority noticed that joint

consent   terms   dated   12­2­2020   had

been filed before it. But it is common

ground   that   these   consent   terms   did

not cover all the original petitioners who

were before the adjudicating authority.

The   adjudicating   authority   was

apprised of the fact that the claims of

140 investors had been fully settled by

the   respondent.   The   respondent   also

noted that of the claims of the original

petitioners   who   have   moved   the

adjudicating   authority,   only   13   have

been settled while, according to it “40

are in the process of settlement and 39

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 14 of 23

are   pending   settlements”.   Eventually,

the   adjudicating   authority   did   not

entertain   the   petition   on   the   ground

that   the   procedure   under   IBC   is

summary,   and   it   cannot   manage   or

decide upon each and every claim of the

individual   homebuyers.   The

adjudicating   authority   also   held   that

since   the   process   of   settlement   was

progressing “in all seriousness”, instead

of examining all the individual claims, it

would   dispose   of   the   petition

by directing the respondent to settle all

the remaining claims “seriously” within

a definite time­frame. The petition was

accordingly disposed of by directing the

respondent   to   settle   the   remaining

claims   no   later   than   within   three

months,   and   that   if   any   of   the

remaining   original   petitioners   were

aggrieved   by   the   settlement   process,

they would be at liberty to approach the

adjudicating   authority   again   in

accordance with law. The adjudicating

authority's decision was also upheld by

the appellate authority, who supported

its conclusions.

34. The   adjudicating   authority   has

clearly acted outside the terms of its

jurisdiction under Section 7(5) IBC. The

adjudicating authority is empowered

only to verify whether a default has

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 15 of 23

occurred   or   if   a   default   has   not

occurred.   Based   upon   its   decision,

the adjudicating authority must then

either admit or reject an application,

respectively.  These  are  the  only  two

courses of action which are open to the

adjudicating   authority   in   accordance

with   Section   7(5).   The   adjudicating

authority cannot compel a party to the

proceedings   before   it   to   settle   a

dispute.”

(emphasis added)

10.Thus,   once   NCLT   is   satisfied   that   the   default   has

occurred, there is hardly a discretion left with NCLT to

refuse   admission   of   the   application   under   Section   7.

Default is defined under sub­section 12 of Section 3 of the

IB Code which reads thus: 

“3.     Definitions:   ­  In   this   Code,

unless the context otherwise requires,­

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

(12)  “default” means non­payment of

debt   when   whole   or   any   part   or

instalment of the amount of debt has

become due and payable and is not

[paid] by the debtor or the corporate

debtor, as the case may be;”

Thus, even the non­payment of a part of debt when it

becomes due and payable will amount to default on the

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 16 of 23

part of a Corporate Debtoṛ.  In such a case, an order of

admission under Section 7 of the IB Code must follow.  If

the NCLT finds that there is a debt, but it has not become

due and payable, the application under Section 7 can be

rejected.  Otherwise, there is no ground available to reject

the application. 

11.Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the

case of  Vidarbha Industries

1

  and in particular, what is

held therein in paragraph nos. 86 to 89 which reads thus:­

“86. Even though Section 7(5)(a) IBC

may confer discretionary power on the

adjudicating   authority,   such

discretionary   power   cannot   be

exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. If

the facts and circumstances warrant

exercise of discretion in a particular

manner, discretion would have to be

exercised in that manner.

87. Ordinarily,   the   adjudicating

authority   (NCLT)   would   have   to

exercise its discretion to admit an

application under Section 7 IBC and

initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the

existence   of   a   financial   debt   and

default on the part of the corporate

debtor   in   payment   of   the   debt,

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 17 of 23

unless there are good reasons not to

admit the petition.

88. The adjudicating authority (NCLT)

has to consider the grounds made out

by   the   corporate   debtor   against

admission,   on   its   own   merits.   For

example, when admission is opposed

on the ground of existence of an award

or a decree in favour of the corporate

debtor,   and   the   awarded/decretal

amount   exceeds   the   amount   of   the

debt, the adjudicating authority would

have to exercise its discretion under

Section   7(5)(a)   IBC   to   keep   the

admission   of   the   application   of   the

financial creditor in abeyance, unless

there is good reason not to do so. The

adjudicating   authority   may,   for

example, admit the application of the

financial creditor, notwithstanding any

award or decree, if the award/decretal

amount is incapable of realisation. The

example is only illustrative.

89. In   this   case,   the   adjudicating

authority (NCLT) has simply brushed

aside the case of the appellant that an

amount   of   Rs   1730   crores   was

realisable by the appellant in terms of

the order passed by APTEL in favour of

the   appellant,   with   the   cursory

observation   that   disputes   if   any

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 18 of 23

between   the   appellant   and   the

recipient of electricity or between the

appellant   and   the   Electricity

Regulatory   Commission   were

inconsequential.”

(emphasis added)

12.A Review Petition was filed by the Axis Bank Limited

seeking a review of the decision of  Vidarbha Industries

1

on the ground that the attention of the Court was not

invited   to   the   case   of  E.S.   Krishnamurthy

2

.   While

disposing of Review Petition by Order dated 22

nd

 September

2022, this Court held thus:  

“The   elucidation   in   paragraph   90

and other paragraphs were made in

the context of the case at hand. It is

well   settled   that   judgments   and

observations in judgments  are not

to be read as provisions of statute.

Judicial   utterances   and/or

pronouncements are in the setting

of the facts of a particular case. 

To interpret words and provisions of a

statute, it may become necessary for

the   Judges   to  embark   upon   lengthy

discussions.   The   words   of   Judges

interpreting   statutes   are   not   to   be

interpreted as statutes.”

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 19 of 23

13.Thus, it was clarified by the order in review that the

decision in the case of  Vidarbha Industries

1

 was in the

setting of facts of the case before this Court.  Hence, the

decision in the case of  Vidarbha Industries

1  

cannot be

read and understood as taking a view which is contrary to

the view taken in the cases of Innoventive Industries

3 

and

E.S.   Krishnamurthy

2

.  The   view   taken   in   the   case   of

Innoventive Industries

3  

still holds good. 

14.In this case, we must note that the amount payable by

the Corporate Debtor also included the amount repayable

under fund­based credit facility of secured overdrafts. The

facility granted to the Corporate Debtor was not confined to

Bank Guarantees. 

15.Moreover, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement   of   Security   Interest   Act,   2002   dated   29

th

August 2018 was issued by the first respondent.   As the

Corporate   Debtor   did   not   honour   the   said   notice,   the

original application for recovery has been filed by the first

respondent   before   the  Debt   Recovery   Tribunal   at

Hyderabad.  Moreover, the Corporate Debtor acknowledged

the   debt   on   5

th

  May   2019   to   the   extent   of   Rs.

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 20 of 23

63,36,61,897.26.     Moreover,   the   Balance   Sheet   as   of

31.03.2019   of   the   Corporate   Debtor   reflects   the   said

liability of the Corporate Debtor.

16.It   is   true   that   as   far   as   Bank   Guarantees   are

concerned, the Executive Engineer of the Government of

Telangana addressed letters to the Bank requesting the

Bank to revalidate the Bank Guarantees. On 8

th

  January

2020, the Government addressed a letter to Syndicate Bank

to extend the seven Bank Guarantees mentioned therein.

The letter mentions that if the action of revalidation or

extension of the Bank Guarantees is not taken, the Bank

Guarantees be realized and the amount be paid by Demand

Drafts to the State Government. Thus, Bank Guarantees

were invoked by the State Government. In view of the said

letter,   on   9

th

  January   2020,   the   Corporate   Debtor

addressed a letter to the Syndicate Bank mentioning that

the issue relating to the pre­closure of the two contracts

granted by the State Government was under the active

consideration of the State Government. The letter mentions

that if the Bank Guarantees were not extended, the same

are likely to be encashed by the Government.  Therefore, a

request was made by the Corporate Debtor to the Bank to

revalidate   the   Bank   Guarantees.     However,   the   first

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 21 of 23

respondent by a letter dated 18

th

 January 2021, specifically

informed   the   Corporate   Debtor   that   the   competent

authority has not considered the proposal of the Corporate

Debtor   for   extending   Bank   Guarantees   and   Secured

Overdraft   Facilities.     By   the   same   letter,   the   first

respondent called upon the Corporate Debtor to clear the

outstanding immediately.  Thus, there is no doubt that the

Corporate Debtor committed a default within the meaning

of Section 3(12) of the IB Code due to non­payment of the

amounts due to the Bank. 

17.There are a large number of Guarantees issued by the

Bank.  The interim order of the Telangana High Court does

not relate to all Bank Guarantees.  Moreover, there is no

finding recorded in the interim order that the Corporate

Debtor is not liable to pay the dues.  The interim order only

prevents coercive action against the Corporate Debtor.  

18.Even assuming that NCLT has the power to reject the

application under Section 7 if there were good reasons to

do so, in the facts of the case, the conduct of the appellant

is such that no such good reason existed on the basis of

which NCLT could have denied admission of the application

under Section 7.

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 22 of 23

19.Hence, we find that there is no merit in the appeal,

and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no

order as to costs.

……..….……………J.

     (Abhay S. Oka)

……...………………J.

      (Rajesh Bindal)

New Delhi;

May 11, 2023.  

Civil Appeal No. 7121 OF 2022

Page 23 of 23