Brief Facts:
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.03.2025, by which the Adjudicating Authority considered and rejected the objection filed in I.A. No. 3778 of 2022 by HDFC Bank. The Appellant's case is that it holds a mortgage over units with super area of 8702 sq. ft. on the sixth floor of Universal Business Park, for which a conveyance deed was executed in favour of M/s Nayanika Holdings Pvt. Ltd. on 14.10.2015.
The Appellant submitted that the Appellant having mortgage over the said units, the said unit could not be made part of the resolution plan and the only prayer of the Appellant is that the said unit be excluded from the resolution plan.
Per contra, the Respondent submitted that in the present case, the plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority in 2021 and the matter was remitted to the Committee of Creditors for consideration of claims by certain Financial Creditors, including Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Subsequently,the plan was approved therefore the Appellant has no locus to file any objection.
Observations:
The Tribunal noted that the Appellant claims mortgage rights over the units sold to M/s Nayanika Holdings Pvt Ltd on 14.10.2015. However, the executed conveyance deed shows no Tripartite Agreement between the Corporate Debtor, M/s Nayanika Holdings Pvt Ltd, and the Bank. The basis of the Appellant's claim is the loan agreement executed by M/s Nayanika Holdings Pvt Ltd in favour of HDFC Bank.
The Tribunal further observed that the Appellant, not being the unit holder and having no rights in the units except for mortgage rights, cannot seek exclusion of the unit. The units were already considered in the resolution plan, which was approved by unit holders possessing either conveyance deeds or builder-buyer agreements.
Based on the above, it opined that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the Appellant bank has no locus to object to the approved resolution plan. As per the earlier order dated 11.06.2021, no objections could be raised except regarding claims of Financial Creditors.
The Tribunal concluded that the appropriate remedy for the Appellant lies against M/s Nayanika Holdings Pvt Ltd, with whom the loan agreement was executed by deposit of title deeds. Hence, the Appellant cannot challenge the resolution plan or the unit's inclusion therein.
Accordingly, the present appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd Versus Atul Kumar Kansal & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 549 of 2025
Judgment Date: 08/04/2025
For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Ms. Arushi and Ms. Jasveen Kaur, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Vaibhav Mendiratta, Mr. Sajal Jain, Mr. Harshit Gupta and Mr. Tarun Mishra, Advocates for RP/R-1. Mr. Himanshu Kapoor and Mr. Harshal, Advocates for R 2/SRA.
Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advocate for R-3.
