Assignment of receivables prevails over labels, and transferable actionable claims fall outside a freeze order once validly assigned.

Contemporaneous financing documents, read as a whole, showed an unconditional transfer of receivables to the lender for repayment. The Court held that the substance of the arrangement, not the label of "pledge," governed its character, so the transaction was an assignment of receivables rather than a mere security interest. Future rent receivables were treated as actionable claims transferable by written instrument under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Once assigned, they ceased to remain the borrower's property to that extent and were outside the asset freeze order, leaving the borrower only the residual balance beyond the facility liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transaction documents created an assignment of receivables in favour of the lender or merely a security interest by way of pledge; (ii) Whether the receivables constituted actionable claims capable of transfer and therefore fell outside the asset freeze order.

Issue (i): Whether the transaction documents created an assignment of receivables in favour of the lender or merely a security interest by way of pledge.

Analysis: The documents were executed contemporaneously and had to be read together. The facility agreement, escrow agreement, assignment and administration agreement, and power of attorney all showed that the borrower had undertaken to assign the receivables sufficient to meet the principal and interest due under the facility. The use of the word "pledge" in parts of the documentation did not change the substance of the arrangement. Applying the settled rule that the nature of a transaction depends on its substance and not its label, the arrangement was an absolute assignment of the relevant receivables and not a mere security interest.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the arrangement was held to be an assignment.

Issue (ii): Whether the receivables constituted actionable claims capable of transfer and therefore fell outside the asset freeze order.

Analysis: Future rent receivables were held to be claims to debt and therefore actionable claims within the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Such claims are transferable by written instrument, and once assigned, the transferee acquires the relevant rights. The freeze order operated against the assets of the borrower, but the assigned receivables no longer remained the borrower's property to that extent. The borrower retained only the residual balance beyond the amount necessary to satisfy the facility liability.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the assigned receivables were transferable actionable claims and were outside the freeze order to the extent assigned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Court accepted the lender's characterization of the transaction as an assignment of receivables and upheld the NCLAT's view on the nature and effect of the assigned rent streams.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous financing documents, read as a whole, show an unconditional transfer of receivables to secure repayment, the transfer is an assignment of an actionable claim and not a mere pledge or security interest; the assignee acquires rights to the assigned receivables, which cease to remain the transferor's assets to that extent.

---