AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocates for Successful Bidder. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Malvika, Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agrawal, Mr. Bijesh Gupta, Advocates for SBI & other bank. JUDGMENT INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T) These three appeals viz. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1019 of 2024; Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1657 of 2024; and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 893 of 2025 arise from the same insolvency and liquidation proceedings of the Corporate Debtor, IMP Powers Limited, and these involve common questions of fact and law relating to the rights of the Appellant, STCI Finance Limited, who is one of the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor(CD) and is a Non-Banking Finance Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India. All these Appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment to avoid repetition of facts and to ensure consistency in adjudication. COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INS.) NO. 1019 OF 2024 2. The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1019 of 2024 has been preferred by the Appellant, STCI Finance Limited, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), assailing the impugned order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate and the distribution of the proceeds realized. 21. As regards prayer (c), no ground has been made by the Applicant seeking the deferment of cost payable to the Liquidator. Prayer (c) is hereby denied. Applicant to comply with the same in 15 days if not already complied. 22. With the above directions, the present Mis. A/ 1(AHM\2O24 in CP (IB) 203 of 2O2O is hereby disposed off." 4. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the failure of the Adjudicating Authority to consider its categorical assertion of non-relinquishment of security interest, has preferred the present Appeal wherein the following reliefs have been sought in para 21 of the appeal: "21. RELIEFS SOUGHT a) An order allowing the present Appeal and thereby setting aside the Impugned Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 22.04.2024 in Misc. A/1 (AHM) 2024 in C.P. No. (IB) 203/2020; b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal this Hon'ble Court stays the auction and sale of the Corporate Debtor. c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal the Liquidator be directed to maintain status quo qua the Secured Assets. d) An order award....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to it, prejudicially affects its rights over the secured assets, has preferred the present Appeal and sought the following Relief: "21. RELIEFS SOUGHT a) An order allowing the present Appeal and thereby direct stay of the issuance of sale certificate as passed vide order dated 06.08.2024 till the Recall Application is decided setting in Misc. A/1 (AHM) 2024 in C.P. No. (IB) 203/2020; b) Alternatively, in the event sale certificate has been issued, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal this Hon'ble Court stays the effect of sale certificate of the Corporate Debtor. c) An order awarding to the Appellant and against the Respondent, costs of and relating to the present Appeal; and d) Such other and/or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INS.) NO. 893 OF 2025 8. The Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 893 of 2025 has been preferred by the Appellant, STCI Finance Limited, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, assailing the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the National Company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ursed in tranches during November 2017 and August 2018, for purposes including augmentation of long-term working capital and capital expenditure requirements. ii. In order to secure the said loan facility, comprehensive security documents including loan agreements and mortgage deeds were executed on 29.11.2017, followed by a supplementary mortgage dated 04.08.2018, whereby a first pari passu charge was created in favour of the Appellant alongside SBI/Respondent No.5. The Appellant's exposure was substantially higher at approximately Rs. 40 crores as against Rs. 9 crores of Respondent No.5. iii. A default occurred in repayment obligations with effect from 29.02.2020, leading the Appellant to issue an Event of Default notice on 09.02.2021, followed by a Recall Notice dated 21.05.2021 invoking guarantees and demanding repayment of the entire outstanding dues within stipulated timelines. iv. Insolvency proceedings were triggered when the Appellant filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code and the Adjudicating Authority, admitted the Corporate Debtor into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 29.03.2022, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration of Rs. 78 crores. The statement of Liquidator was recorded by this Tribunal on 06.08.2024, leading to disposal of the appeal without adjudication on merits. xii. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 20.08.2024 directing issuance of sale certificate within three days, which was immediately challenged by the Appellant through a recall application and by filing a fresh appeal before this Tribunal. xiii. This Appellate Tribunal, while entertaining the second appeal on 23.08.2024, specifically directed that issuance of the sale certificate shall remain subject to the outcome of the appeal. The Appellant also sought revival of the earlier appeal by filing IA No. 6616 of 2024, while parallel proceedings continued before the Adjudicating Authority regarding issuance of sale certificate and distribution of proceeds. This Appellate Tribunal allowed the revival of First appeal on 19.02.2025. xiv. The Adjudicating Authority, being aware of the pendency of appeals, adjourned proceedings on 23.09.2024 expressly observing that judicial propriety required awaiting the outcome of proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. xv. Succes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed specifically seeking enforcement of the Appellant's security interest in terms of Section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 along with other applicable provisions of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. It is submitted that the Impugned Order has resulted in a complete denial of the statutory rights vested in the Appellant as a secured creditor. 12. He submitted that the findings recorded in the Impugned Order are wholly unsustainable both in law as well as on facts. The Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the Impugned Order is ex-facie arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to settled legal principles. It is specifically contended that the Impugned Order has been passed in clear violation of Section 52 of the IBC, which unequivocally grants a secured creditor the right to either relinquish its security interest or realise the same independently. Further, the findings are also in violation of Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Regulations, which prohibits sale of secured assets without relinquishment of security interest. It is also submitted that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has completely misconstrued Regulation 21A as well as Regulation 37 of the Liqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asserting its statutory rights, the Liquidator proceeded, with mala fide intent, to issue an e-auction notice dated 08.03.2024 for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern under Regulation 32(e), in clear violation of the Appellant's rights. The Appellant was therefore constrained to approach the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 18.03.2024 seeking appropriate reliefs. 17. The Learned Sr. Counsel submits that despite the above undisputed facts demonstrating blatant illegality on the part of the Liquidator, the Learned Adjudicating Authority has erroneously dismissed the Appellant's application and recorded findings which are contrary to law. It has been wrongly held that the Appellant had not taken steps under SARFAESI, that relinquishment is deemed under Section 13(9), that majority decision binds even first charge holders, and that Regulation 21A results in automatic inclusion in liquidation estate. It is submitted that these findings are wholly unsustainable and based on a complete misreading of the statutory framework. He submitted that the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside being contrary to both law and facts. 18. The Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant could not have sold the asset is factually incorrect, as the timeline under SARFAESI extended till June 2024. Thus, the conclusion that enforcement was not possible is based on incorrect assumptions. 24. It is also submitted that with respect to the scheme of compromise and arrangement, the Appellant had consistently opposed the same and had expressly reserved its right to initiate legal proceedings if its secured assets were included. Thus, the finding that no objection was raised is incorrect. 25. The Learned Sr. Counsel submits that since the Appellant has not relinquished its security interest, it is not a member of the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee under Regulation 31A, and therefore, the reasoning of deadlock or majority decision is wholly irrelevant and misconceived. 26. He submitted that Regulation 21A cannot be interpreted in a manner that curtails or overrides the substantive rights granted under Section 52 of the Code. The right of a secured creditor to realise its security is a statutory right and cannot be defeated by procedural regulations. He submits that Regulation 21A must be interpreted harmoniously with Section 52 and not in derogation th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Summing up his arguments, Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority deserves to be set aside, and the Appellant, having not relinquished its security interest, be permitted to realise its secured assets independently in accordance with Section 52(1)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Submissions of the Respondent No. 2/ Liquidator 34. Shri Krishnendu Datta Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/ Liquidator submits that the Appellant has failed to comply with the statutory framework governing realization of security interest under Section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulations 21, 21A and 37 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations. It is submitted that the statutory scheme mandates that a secured creditor, if it elects to realize its security interest outside liquidation, must undertake specific steps within a period of 90 days from the liquidation commencement date. However, in the present case, the Appellant has admittedly failed to undertake such steps within the prescribed timeline. 35. It is submitted that the law, as clarifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecame part of the liquidation estate. Consequently, the Appellant cannot now contend that it continues to hold an independent right to realize the secured asset. 41. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the sale notices issued by the Liquidator are fully compliant with the provisions of the Code and the applicable regulations, and were issued pursuant to decisions taken in the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) meetings. 42. It is submitted that the first sale notice dated 08.03.2024 was issued following the 3rd SCC Meeting, wherein a conscious decision was taken to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern at a reserve price of Rs. 94 crores. However, since no bids were received, the Liquidator, in consultation with the SCC, issued a second sale notice dated 24.04.2024 at a reduced reserve price. The minutes of these meetings were duly circulated to the Appellant, thereby ensuring transparency and participation. 43. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the successful auction purchaser (Respondent No. 3) emerged pursuant to the second sale notice, which was issued well beyond the expiry of the 90-day period available to the Appellant for realization of its se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the inter se priority of charges among secured creditors is not extinguished even in a liquidation scenario. 50. It is submitted that the Liquidator, while proposing the distribution, took into account the loan documents, the nature of security interests, and the existence of pari passu charges between STCI and SBI, as well as letters issued by other lenders ceding charge in favour of STCI. 51. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the Liquidator has acted in a fair and transparent manner and has not sought to impose the proposed distribution as final. In fact, in its reply to IA 6616/2024, the Liquidator has expressly stated that it has no objection if this Hon'ble Tribunal modifies the proposed distribution, and has left the issue entirely to the wisdom of this Hon'ble Tribunal. 52. He submitted that the Liquidator has discharged its duties in accordance with law, and the question of final distribution remains open for adjudication by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 53. Shri Dutta Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Liquidator submits that the third appeal is barred by limitation and is therefore not maintainable. It is further submitted that, in any event, the Appellant did not press t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pari passu arrangement. These conditions were fundamental and went to the root of creation of any valid security interest. 58. Shri Sinha submits that it is an admitted position that neither of these conditions were ever fulfilled. No inter se agreement was executed and no reciprocal NOC was issued by STCI. Consequently, the conditional NOCs never attained legal validity or enforceability. In law, a conditional consent does not crystallize into an enforceable right unless the stipulated conditions are strictly complied with. Therefore, the alleged pari passu charge claimed by STCI never came into existence. 59. He further submitted that the NOCs issued by other banks were themselves contingent upon the effectiveness of SBI's NOC. Since SBI's NOC never became operative, all other NOCs also failed, thereby rendering the entire claim of STCI as a secured creditor legally untenable. 60. It is his legal submission that the above legal position stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in "Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors., Writ Petition No. 43027 of 2019" wherein it has been categorically held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....na Power Limited vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1510 of 2019. He places further reliance is placed on State Bank of India vs. Soni Ispat & Ors., Appeal No. R-53 of 2013 (DRAT) which demonstrates that in cases of joint security, decision of majority creditors binds all creditors irrespective of charge ranking. 68. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that upon commencement of liquidation on 19.12.2023, STCI was required to comply with statutory obligations under Section 52 of the IBC and Regulation 21A and Regulation 37 of the Liquidation Regulations. 69. He submitted that Regulation 21A(2) mandates that a secured creditor must pay its share of CIRP costs and workmen dues within 90 days. The said period expired on 19.03.2024. Despite specific communications by the Liquidator dated 21.02.2024, STCI failed to make such payment. He further submitted that Regulation 21A(3) clearly provides that failure to comply results in automatic inclusion of the asset into the liquidation estate. This is a statutory consequence and requires no further adjudication. It is also submitted that Regulation 37 mandates that the secured creditor must intimate the liquid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant has neither perfected a valid security interest nor complied with mandatory statutory requirements. Further, the decision of majority secured creditors is binding in law and the consequence of non-compliance with Regulation 21A squarely applies. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the present Appeal and the impugned order be upheld in the interest of justice. Submissions of the Respondent No. 4/Successful Auction Purchaser 76. Shri Malak Bhatt Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.4/ Shri Rakesh Ramanlal Shah, who is the Successful Auction Purchaser of IMP Powers Limited submits that the Corporate Debtor has been purchased as a going concern pursuant to a duly conducted liquidation sale under the supervision of the Adjudicating Authority, and therefore, the sanctity of such sale deserves utmost protection in law. 77. Ld. Counsel submits that in the first appeal, has been filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench, whereby the application filed by Appellant/STCI seeking to set aside the e-auction process and stall the liquidation sale was dismissed. The Respondent submits that the said order rightly permitted continua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Sale Certificate and payment of the entire consideration, the Successful Auction Purchaser has undertaken extensive, bona fide and irreversible steps towards revival and operation of the Corporate Debtor. He submits that the Respondent has incurred substantial expenditure to preserve and maintain the assets of the Corporate Debtor, including safeguarding the Silvassa plant from deterioration, despite continuous litigation initiated by STCI. The Respondent has actively taken steps to restore corporate governance by engaging with stock exchanges for revocation of suspension of trading of shares, and by completing all statutory filings before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Registrar of Companies reflecting change in control and management. 83. He submitted that multiple Board Meetings and an Extraordinary General Meeting have been convened to streamline governance structures, and responses have been filed before tax authorities in relation to pending GST audits and excise matters. The Respondent No. 4 has discharged statutory and operational liabilities including payment of utilities, property taxes, and electricity dues across various units, and has taken steps to ensur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at detail, gone through the voluminous records of the case and the written submission of the parties. We now take up the first appeal and second appeal together as they are sequential in nature. 90. The key issue to be determined in First Appeal is Whether the decision of the Liquidator to compulsorily bring the security interest of the Appellant (STCI Finance Ltd.) in the Liquidation Estate is in compliance with the provisions of the code? 91. The main issue in the second appeal relates to distribution of liquidation proceeds under Section 53 and the criteria to be adopted for such distribution. We would now examine these issues in the same order. 92. The present dispute arises in the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, IMP Powers Limited, pursuant to liquidation order dated 19.12.2023. The Appellant, a secured financial creditor with an admitted claim of approximately Rs. 39.55 Crores, asserts its right to stand outside liquidation and realize its alleged secured assets under Section 52 of the Code. The issue here is not merely about assertion of such right, but whether the Appellant actually fulfilled the statutory conditions necessary to operationalize that right, esp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conditional and reciprocal in nature, and such conditions were never fulfilled by the Appellant. Consequently, a fully perfected and enforceable exclusive charge in favour of the Appellant never came into existence. 96. The liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was ordered on 19.12.2023. The Appellant filed its claim on 17.01.2024 and expressly indicated that it had not relinquished its security interest. The Liquidator admitted its claim on 17.02.2024. However, subsequently, based on legal opinion and the conduct of majority creditors, the Liquidator proceeded on the basis that the security interest stood relinquished as part of liquidation estate. 97. It is an admitted position that secured creditors holding 69.15% voting share had initially relinquished their security interest, this figure later went up to 85% when 2 more banks relinquished their security interest. 98. On 21.02.2024, the Appellant objected and sought permission to realize its security under Section 52. However, significantly, no concrete steps for realization were taken thereafter. Instead: • The Appellant did not participate in multiple SCC meetings dated 22.02.2024, 01.03.2024, 02.04.2024....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Third party Security Provider(s) in favour of the Lender as and by way of security for payment of any Outstanding Amounts/Obligations including all Related Rights pertaining thereto. 3.11 The Borrowers shall create/extend mortgage on the Mortgaged Property on first pari passu basis to be shared along with the Consortium Term Lenders by depositing title deeds with IDBI Bank by way of constructive delivery and duly noting the same with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances and causing their authorised signatory to execute a declaration in favour of the Lender recording and confirming the same. However, it is agreed that on the payment/repayment of the Term Loan granted by the Consortium Term Lenders, the said title deeds shall be handed over directly by IDBI Bank to the Lender and the Borrowers shall along with the letter from the Consortium Lenders ceding charge submit to the Lender a letter to the said effect from the Consortium Lenders. SCHEDULE - II A DETAILS OF THE TERM LOAN GRANTED BY THE CONSORTIUM TERM LENDERS Sr. No Name of Lenders Sanctioned amount (Rs. In Cr) Outstanding as on 31.03.2017 (Rs. In Cr) Undisbursed Loan amount 1. State Bank of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Companies. v. STCI was to acknowledge the receipt and SBI clearly stated that ceding of charge was on reciprocal basis subject to similar letter by STCI ceding pari-passu charge in SBI's favour by the STCI. 104. The most important condition in the letter related to reciprocal ceding of pari-passu charge by the STCI. We note from the records that based on the aforesaid authorisation, the Company created 1st pari passu charge on fixed assets of the company in favour of STCI also. Secondly STCI registered the 1st pari-passu charge on fixed assets of the company with Registrar of Companies. Most importantly, we note that no letter was issued by STCI ceding the 1st Charge on pari-passu basis in favour of SBI nor was the inter-se agreement executed between SBI, STCI and the company/CD. In view of non-compliance with the conditions viz. the absence of a valid inter se agreement, and reciprocal ceding of 1st pari-passu charge by the STCI, the alleged pari passu charge never became operative in law. 105. We now take a look at the letter from Karnataka Bank to IMP Power Ltd regarding issue of NOC/ceding of 1st pari passu charge by the bank on the fixed assets of the company. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty interest being realised and to the secured creditor and apply the proceeds to recover the debts due to it. (5) ...... (6) ...... (7) ...... (8) The amount of insolvency resolution process costs, due from secured creditors who realise their security interests in the manner provided in this section, shall be deducted from the proceeds of any realisation by such secured creditors, and they shall transfer such amounts to the liquidator to be included in the liquidation estate." 108. In this case STCI the Appellant submitted its claim on 17.01.2024 for an amount of Rs. 39,55,34,828/- and also submitted to the Liquidator in prescribed form stating their intention to realise its security interest in accordance with Section 52(1)(b) of the Code. It is the submission of the Appellant that the Liquidator admitted the claim of the Appellant on 17.02.2024 but he unilaterally assumed relinquishment of the Appellants security interest without consent. 109. In this context, we now take a look at Regulation 21A of the 'Liquidation Regulation'. "Regulation 21A: Presumption of security interest. (1) A secured creditor shall inform the li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is near. However, the Appellant failed to respond to these queries of liquidator. 111. It is on record that CIRP costs were approved by the 14th CoC held between 28th to 31st July, 2023 and the concerned CoC Members were asked to share the balance due. In this regard, we further note that in the second Stakeholders Consultation Committee meeting held on 22.02.2024 agenda item no.8 referred to the payment of pending CIRP cost by members of the CoC which was also circulated to Appellant even though it was not present in the meeting. As per the same the Appellant had to pay an amount of Rs. 34,11,727/- as balance CIRP cost. The relevant agenda is extracted below: "8) Request for the Cost Contribution by the members of the Stakeholder Consultation Committee. The Chairman informed the members that the Liquidator had sent an email to all the bankers on 08.02.2024 requesting them to contribute towards the cost incurred in running the process. The said email comprised of a sheet briefing the details of the Unpaid CIRP Cost for the period 01-10-2023 to 18-12-2023 and its bifurcation in voting ratio, along with details of the Total Amount Due, Total Amount Paid and Def....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of secured creditors decide upon a course of action, such decision becomes binding on the remaining creditors. 117. In the present case, the threshold was not merely met but substantially exceeded, with more than 69%-and subsequently over 85%-of secured creditors relinquishing their security. The Appellant, therefore, cannot unilaterally assert a contrary position to derail the liquidation process. 118. We also note the concession made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant during the proceedings in IA/965(Ahm)/2024 recorded in the order dated 20.08.2024 which is extracted below: "Further the Learned senior counsel appearing for the once of the Financial Creditors/STCI Finance Limited on instructions also stated that the STCI Finance Limited has also no objection on the reserve price fixed by the SCC, and sale through E-Auction on 21.05.2024 as a going concern as mentioned above for Rs. 78,00,00,000/-" It is clear from the above, that the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant had agreed to sale of the assets of the CD as a going concern. 119. The Appellant had relied upon the judgment in "Canara Bank vs. S. Rajendran, (2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 390)" of this Appellate Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in subsequent paragraphs. 122. In "Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors., Writ Petition No. 43027 of 2019" the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana examined whether a valid pari passu charge could be said to exist merely on the basis of issuance of a No Objection Certificate and registration of charge. The Court held that unless there exists a binding contractual arrangement between the lenders, such as an inter se agreement, the mere issuance of an NOC or filing of charge with the Registrar of Companies does not result in creation of a legally enforceable pari passu charge. It was further held that registration of charge is only a procedural requirement and cannot substitute the substantive act of creation of charge. In the present case, we find that although conditional NOCs were issued, the essential conditions, namely execution of an inter se agreement and issuance of reciprocal Ceding of the charge by the Appellant, were never fulfilled. Thus, applying the ratio of the above judgment, the alleged pari passu charge in favour of the Appellant never came into existence in law, and the Appellant cannot claim the status of a secured creditor on tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act, being the applicable law under Section 52(4) of the Code, operates squarely in the present case and negates the Appellant's claim of unilateral enforcement of security interest. 125. In "Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kuldeep Verma, Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors., CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 592 of 2024", this Appellate Tribunal examined the consequences of non-compliance with Regulation 21A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. It was held that where a secured creditor, despite expressing an intention not to relinquish its security interest, fails to comply with the mandatory requirements under Regulation 21A(2), including payment of CIRP costs and workmen dues within the prescribed timeline, the consequence under Regulation 21A(3) follows automatically, and the secured asset becomes part of the liquidation estate. The Tribunal further observed that mere assertion of a right under Section 52 is not sufficient, and such right must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory framework. In the present case, we find that the liquidation order was passed on 19.12.2023, and the statutory period of 90 days expired on 18/1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....curity interest. In simple words the payment which is to be made under relevant provisions of Section 52 and 53 of the IBC by the secured creditor is not dependent on the realisation of security interest by a secured creditor. Thus the Tribunal in this regard has not erred in returning a finding that prayer of the appellant to pay the required dues under Section 53 of the IBC only after realisation of his security interest is not justified and legal. 34. Therefore, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the various judgments passed by this Tribunal mentioned herein before it is evident that the appellant did not make any prayer before the Tribunal to extend time or to provide sufficient time to deposit the money as required under Section 53 of the IBC and has only requested the Tribunal to permit him to realise his security interest first and to further permit to deposit the dues under Section 53 of the IBC thereafter from the proceeds of such realisation and this prayer of the appellant in our considered opinion has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The Judgment impugned before us is required to be tested on the basis of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the findings in above paragraphs, we do not find any infirmity in the way the liquidation process has been carried out by the liquidator. The first issue therefore is decided in favour of Respondents. 130. We now take up the second issue relating to distribution of liquidation sale proceeds which has been agitated in the second appeal. It arises out of subsequent developments in the liquidation process, particularly the order dated 20.08.2024 directing issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the Successful Auction Purchaser. The grievance of the Appellant, in substance, is not confined to the issuance of the sale certificate alone, but extends to the manner in which the sale proceeds are to be distributed amongst the stakeholders. The question therefore, arises for consideration is whether such dispute can be adjudicated at this stage by this Tribunal, or whether it ought to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority in the first instance. 131. The Appellant has contended that the issuance of the sale certificate ought not to have been directed without first determining the correct manner of distribution of sale proceeds, particularly in view of its asserted status and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found to be in order, and therefore, the only surviving dispute between the parties pertains to distribution of liquidation proceeds. 136. In these circumstances, while we do not find any infirmity in the issuance of the sale certificate, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of adjudicating the issue of distribution of sale proceeds and the inter se rights of stakeholders. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the claims of all parties, including the Appellant, in accordance with Section 53 of the Code, without being influenced by our observations. 137. The third appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 893 of 2025, arises from the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 1387 of 2024, filed by the Successful Auction Purchaser whereby reliefs and protections under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were granted without hearing the Appellant or other Financial Creditors. 138. We note that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 171 days. At the outset, we find that the present appeal raises a threshold issue of limitation and maintainability, which goes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under the Code. Therefore, this delay of 171 days is beyond the powers of this tribunal, which can condone delay up to a maximum period of 45 days. 142. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present appeal is clearly barred by limitation and is not maintainable. Accordingly, the third appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation and not maintainable. 143. In view of the findings above, we dispose of these three appeals in the following manner: i. The First Appeal (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1019 of 2024) stands dismissed. ii. The Second Appeal (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1657of 2024) is disposed off with direction to Ld. Adjudicating Authority to decide the distribution of liquidation sale proceeds in accordance with Section 53(1) of the Code within a period of 4 weeks. iii. The Third Appeal (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 893 of 2025) is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending IA's, if any, are closed. ============= Document 1 SBI à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ मंटू बैक STATE BANK OF INDIA 10 STCI Finance Limited,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8070 Bwin code : SOMUN88101 TRUE COPY R ADVOCATE Document 2 4. We also authorise you to make a mention of the 1" pari passu charges in favour of ourselves and your institution on the fixed assets of the Company in the form of particulars of charge required to be filed by the Company with the registrar of the companies pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. 11 : 5. Please acknowledge receipt and please note that our ceding of charge is on reciprocal basis and is subject to receiving similar letter ceding pari passu charge In our favour by STCI Finance Limited. Yours faithfully. 1 CM & Relationship Manager (AMT-VII) S ANT VS Document 3 Annesure - B 8 Karnataka Bank Ltd. Branch: Corporate Finance, Mumbai 294 A Haroon House Perin Neriman Street, Port Mumbal -400 001, India Phone : 022-22662283, 22063256 :022-22001605 E-Mail : [email protected] Webade : werwar CIN Our Ref: CFB: MUM: OR: [20 :2018-19 Date: 25.04.2018 To, M/s. IMP Powers Limited, 35/C, Popular Press Building, 2nd Floor, Malviya Road, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. Dear Sir, Sub: Your request for Issue of NOC/ letter for ceding First Pari Passu Charge on ....