TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), whereby order dated 20.02.2020 passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), was set aside. FACTS 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal, as discernible from the record are set out in the following chronology of events: (i) On 06.04.2011, M/s. Emerald Mineral Exim Pvt. Ltd. [(Corporate Debtor, (CD)] and Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Ltd. (Builder) entered into an agreement for sale of unit bearing No. SBP-9C(A) measuring 5893.5 sq. ft. which was to be constructed in the building, namely "Synthesis Business Park" New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata (subject property). (ii) On 27.06.2011, the appellant (Bank) sanct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds repayment of the loan were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. (xiii) On 28.01.2016 the Bank initiated proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (1993 Act), before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the CD, Builder and Guarantors for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,80,32,125.50/- as on 11.12.2015 along with interest at the rate of 14.25 % per annum. (xiv) By an order dated 20.09.2016, the DRT held that Bank's charge is existing and continues irrespective of the sale deed executed by the Builder in favour of the third party and appointed a receiver to take possession of the subject property from the third party. The DRT further directed the Builder to deposit a su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite agreement dated 29.06.2011. Our intention has been invited to Clauses 2 & 19 of the aforesaid agreement. It is also urged that facility agreement discloses that true borrower is the CD who had paid interest on the loan and had executed acknowledgment of liability. It is argued that NCLAT has incorrectly recorded a finding that the Bank has recovered a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores and ought to have appreciated that the amount is still lying in deposit with the DRT. It is contended that the Bank has taken recourse to different statutory remedies which does not amount to forum shopping. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the Bank had disbursed the loan amount to the Builder and there was no enfo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 and Anjani Technoplast Ltd v. Shubh Gautam; 2026 INSC 410]. 9. In the instant case from the perusal of clauses 7 to 14, 16, 17 to 20 and 25 of the quadripartite agreement following facts emerge:- (a) An amount of Rs. 1.50 crore was to be paid by the Bank upfront/in multiple tranches to the Builder. (b) The CD had instructed the Bank to disburse the loan amount directly to the Builder subject to terms and conditions of the facility agreement. (c) On completion of construction of subject property, the Builder was required to give seven days prior notice before execution of sale deed in favour of the CD. (d) In case, CD desires to withdraw its application for allotment of subject property or its applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant obligation concerning the construction, delivery and transfer of subject property. The structure of transaction reveals that Bank's disbursement was intrinsically linked to performance of Builder's obligation. In such circumstances, the transaction cannot be viewed in isolation as a simple financial lending arrangement between the Bank and the CD. 11. The material on record indicates that obligations arising out of the transaction are intertwined with Builder's performance. The dispute between the parties is predominantly contractual in character involving competing claims relating to transfer of property and associated obligations. CONCLUSION 12. The present case does not involve a straightforward financial debt default scen....