Match the following dictum/issue involved with the case law(s) based on ratios/decisions pronounced under IBC, 2016: Sl. No. Case Title 1. Shivam Water Treaters Private Limited Vs. Union of India, Secretary to Government

Match the following dictum/issue involved with the case law(s) based on ratios/decisions pronounced under IBC, 2016: Sl. No. Case Title 1. Shivam Water Treaters Private Limited Vs. Union of India, Secretary to Government, Ministry of Corporate Affairs 2. Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd and Another Vs. Union of India and Others 3. Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd Vs. Union of India and Others 4. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others 5. Arcelor Mittal India Pvt Ltd Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others 6. K. Kishan Vs. Vijay Nirman Company Limited 7. State Bank of India Vs. Coastal Projects Ltd. 8. B. K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates 9. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Vs Axis Bank and Others Sl. No. Issue A The Court noted that the purpose of the IBC is solitary as it has been enacted to ensure that an industry under distress does not fade into oblivion and can be reviewed by virtue of the resolution plan. B The Operational Creditors cannot use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedure C The Court held that Article 19(1)(g) has not been infracted but has been saved by Article 19(6) as the Amendment Act is made in public interest, and it cannot be said to be unreasonable restriction on the Petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) D The 'right to sue' accrues when a default occurs E The Adjudicating Authority observed that the resolution plan cannot be considered at the stage when the CoC has, by majority decision, decided to proceed with liquidation F The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India stated that the Directorate of Enforcement has no jurisdiction to attach the property of the Corporate Debtor, which is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process G The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India stated that the Directorate of Enforcement has no jurisdiction to attach the property of the Corporate Debtor, which is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process H The High Court was requested not to enter into the debate pertaining to the validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or the constitutional validity of the NCLT I It would render the remedy of appeal inefficacious and a circuit Bench be established at every place where aggrieved party could avail of his remedy. On this point, the Attorney General assured the Court that judgement of Madras Bar Association will be followed and Circuit Benches will be established as soon as it is practicable J The Court held that the Bonafide third party claimant has a legitimate right to proceed ahead with enforcement of its claim in accordance with law not-withstanding the order of attachment under PMLA K It was held that a resolution applicant has no vested right that his resolution plan be considered, it is clear that no challenge can be preferred to the Adjudicating Authority at this stage L Provisions of Section 7 of the code are not unconstitutional, and the principles of natural justice are implicit in Section 7 of the code M It felt that the latter action (that is attachment under PMLA) is not rendered irrelevant or unenforceable