UCO BANK vs M/S SVOGL OIL AND GAS ENERGY LTD AND ORS on 30 March 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

1. 1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank i.e. UCO Bank on 06.03.2017, through Mr. G.L. Gupta, Asst. General Manager of Applicant Bank, being authorized representatives of Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants no. 1 to 5 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 106,36,80,820.20 (Rupees One Hundred Six Crore Thirty Six Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty and Paise Twenty only) inclusive of interest upto 28.02.2017 together with further, pendentelite and future interest and other charges thereon at the agreed contractual rate of interest from the date of disbursement to till the date of payment and for realization in full of above said debt due in respect of aforesaid term loan facility along with all costs and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 268/2017 was originally filed before Ld. DRT-II, Delhi, however, in pursuance to Gazette Notification No. 4718 (E) dated 04.10.2022 issued by Government of India, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, this case file was transferred by Ld. DRT-II, Delhi to this Tribunal in October 2022 and was numbered at TA-322/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank i.e. UCO Bank, is a body corporate seal with powers subject to the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 40 of 1970, and is represented by its authorized representative, Mr. G.L. Gupta, Assistant General Manager of applicant bank who is duly authorized and empowered by the Applicant Bank to sign, verify and file the OA and documents with it and in the interest of the Applicant Bank, in connection with the application and to do all other co-related acts on behalf of 

the Applicant Bank for the proper prosecution of the instant OA. He is also conversant with the facts of the instant case and present OA is accordingly being signed, verified and instituted by said Sh. G.L. Gupta on behalf of the applicant bank.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant No. 1 (M/s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited) is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in providing seismic and drilling services to the companies operating in the Oil industry and also one of the players in the onshore drilling space in India. It is further stated that the defendant no. 1 was initially incorporated under the name and style of M/s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited but later on changed its name to "SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited" and Defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 who are the promoters and guarantor also in the capacity of personal guarantors.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 has requested vide Letter dated 18.11.2009 for sanction of a Term Loan of Rs. 100.0 Crore under sole banking arrangement and for procurement of balancing equipments to be used on Oil Rigs. Upon the request of the defendant / s the applicant bank on 03.02.2010 sanctioned a Term Loan facility of Rs. 100.0 Crore to the defendant no. 1.

2.3 It is further stated in the OA that the applicant bank has first disburse the Term Loan into the defendants account on 30.01.2010 taking into account the moratorium period, the repayment has to commence from 12 quarter and therefore, the Term Loan is being sanctioned by the applicant bank on the terms and conditions as detailed in Para 5(5.5) of the OA.

It is also stated in the OA that Mr. Prem Singhee (defendant no. 2) and Mr. Padam Singhee (defendant no. 3) who are the promoters and guarantor also in the capacity of personal guarantor has provided Guarantee / Security to the loan facilities granted by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants on security of pari-passu charge over certain assets of the Defendants and therefore, defendants no. 6 to 30 have been arrayed as proforma Defendants in the present OA without claiming any substantial relief against such Proforma Defendants and presented a proposal for Term Loan under UCO Bank where Defendants no. 6 to 30 were the part of the Consortium of which the Applicant Bank is a member and which has granted various credit facilities from time to time to the Defendants on security of pari-passu charge over certain assets of the defendants.

In consideration of the above mentioned Term Loan for the facilities, the defendants executed the necessary loaning documents which are as follows:-

- (i) Sanction Letter dated 03.02.2010;

- (ii) Board Resolution dated 05.02.2010;

- (iii) Hypothecation Agreement dated 11.02.2010;

- (iv) Term Loan Agreement dated 11.02.2010 (AHL-6);

- (v) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 11.02.2010 (AHL-20);

- (vi) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 11.02.2010 (AHL-20);

- (vii) Affidavit cum undertaking by Mr. O.P. Garg;

- (viii) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 11.02.2010;

- (ix) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 11.02.2010.

It is stated in the OA that after execution of the documents, the Defendants were granted a term loan of Rs. 100.0 crore vide Sanction Letter dated 03.02.2010. Pursuant to the request of the defendants, the Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter bearing No. ND/FCC/2009-10/1403 dated 03.02.2010 granted following credit facilities:-

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Nature of Facility</th> <th>Limit Rupees</th> <th>Margin</th> <th>Effective ROI/commission</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><b>Fund Based Limit</b></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Term Loan</td> <td>100.0 Crore</td> <td>26%</td> <td>BPLR-0.75% p.a.<br/>Presently 11.50% p.a.<br/>at monthly rests.<br/>Penal interest @2%<br/>p.a. over and above<br/>the applicable ROI<br/>and/or at such rate to<br/>be decided by the<br/>bank from time to<br/>time</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total</td> <td>100.0</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Repayment</td> <td></td> <td></td> <td>In 12 equal quarterly<br/>instalments (3-years)<br/>after moratorium of 2-<br/>years from date of 1^st<br/>disbursement</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Defendants conveyed acceptance of the sanctioned loan facility by signing on the duplicate copy of the sanction letter and returned the duly signed copy of the aforesaid sanction letter, accepting the terms and conditions.

Pursuant to the execution of aforesaid security documents and the deed of personal guarantee, the Applicant Bank disbursed the Term Loan Facility of Rs. 100.0 to the defendants in their account no. 19450610003855 and the said amount was duly availed and utilized by the defendants.

2.4 It is further stated in the OA that on 04.10.2012 defendant no. 1 has approached the applicant bank to change the Base Rate System and accordingly on 17.04.2013, the applicant bank entered into an agreement with the Defendant no. 1 for changing the Base Rate System and where the Base rate changed to 14% p.a. from 10.20%.

2.5 During the intervening period, as the loan accounts of the defendant no. 1 with the various lenders / banks were continuing to be out of order and as the company was in financial difficulties due to various internal and external reasons, the defendant no. 1 submitted a Flash Report on 27.06.2013 to the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell, IDBI Towers, Mumbai for admittance to CDR mechanism for restructuring, under a copy to all the lenders.

On the basis of the Flash Report, the applicant bank on 14.09.2013 proposed for Individual CDR mechanism for the balance amount of Rs. 77.85 crore as against Rs. 75.0 crore as per Flash Report where quarterly instalments of the Term Loan of Rs. 8.33 crore was due from 31.05.2012. As the company has repaid only four quarterly instalments, the balance outstanding on Term Loan are as under:- <table border="1"> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Term Loan Balance as on 01.04.2013</td> <td>Rs. 77.85 Crore</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Less interests &amp; charges for the period upto 31.03.2013 (Repaid after COD)</td> <td>Rs. 2.85 Crore</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Less :- QI due for quarter Feb-2013 repaid after COD</td> <td>Rs. 8.33 crore</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Term Loan balance for CDR package should be</td> <td>Rs. 66.67 crore</td> </tr> </table>

2.6 On 25.09.2013 Restructuring in Individual Basis of Term Loan was availed by the defendant no. 1 / company with the CDR scheme and the same was approved by the MCB and also by BLCAC. On the basis of approvals, banks individuals' documents for restructuring have been executed by the defendant(s) on 30.09.2013 and the position of the accounts was also mentioned.

It is also stated that after receiving approval from MCB & BLCAC for Individual Restructuring, the defendant(s) executed the following documents:-

- (i) Agreement with the borrower(s) on rescheduling / rephrasing of Term Loan dated 30.09.2013;

- (ii) Term Loan Agreement dated 30.09.2013;

- (iii) Deed of Hypothecation of movable plant and machinery dated 30.09.2013;

- (iv) Deed of Guarantee by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 30.09.2013;

- (v) Deed of Guarantee by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 30.09.2013.

2.7 It is further stated that after individual restructuring of account, for availing the restructuring facility(ies) from all the lenders, the defendant(s) executed various documents for restructuring / rescheduling of the outstanding amounts of the Existing facilities, in furtherance for the facilities, the defendants executed the necessary loaning documents. The documents executed by them in regards to above mentioned facility are as under:-

- (i) Master Restructuring Agreement dated 30.06.2014;

- (ii) Sponsor Support Agreement dated 28.03.2014;

- (iii) Security Trust Agreement dated 20.03.2014;

- (iv) Deed of Personal Guarantee by Prem Singhee dated 18.03.2014;

- (v) Deed of Personal Guarantee by Padam Singhee dated 18.03.2014;

- (vi) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by T.R.S. Technology Private Limited dated 28.03.2014;

- (vii) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by Dharti Oil Services Private Ltd. dated 28.03.2014;

- (viii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 20.03.2014;

- (ix) Trust and Retention Account Agreement dated 28.03.2014.

2.8 It is stated in the OA that considering the flash report and other necessary documents of the defendant(s), the consortium member banks restructured the credit facilities and on 10.03.2014 the Applicant Bank has granted the following facility(ies) in favour of the Defendants vide its Sanction Letter bearing no. ND/FCC/2013-14/1933 dated 10.03.2014 on the terms and conditions, as detailed in Para 5(5.17) of the OA:- <table><tr><td>Term Loan (Restructured)</td><td>-</td><td>Rs. 66.67 Crore</td></tr><tr><td>Priority Term Loan</td><td>-</td><td>Rs. 5.69 Crore<br/>(not released)</td></tr><tr><td>FITL</td><td>-</td><td>Rs. 11.07 Crore</td></tr></table>

Further, the Defendants also provided a copy of the extracts from the minutes of the annual general meeting of the shareholders of the company for enhancing the borrowing powers of the board of directors to an amount not exceeding Rs. 2500.00 Crore under Section 293(1)(d) of the Companies Act.

Pursuant to the execution of the aforesaid security documents and the deed of personal guarantee and the deed of corporate guarantee, the Applicant Bank restructured the Term Loan Facility of Rs. 100.00 Crore in the account no. 19450610003855, by allowing an amount of Rs. 66.67 crore and Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL) Rs. 11.07 crore in the account no. 19450610003800 where Priority Loan was nil and the said amount was duly availed and utilized by the Defendants.

2.8 It is stated in the OA that on 09.03.2015, MC Meeting was held after submitting the Review Note by ICICI Bank based on recommendations, and on 20.03.2015, JLF was also held for Review and to take up certain decisions of the Term Loan accounts where after Reviewing the proposal of the Review note it came to notice that the present cash flow of that time does not permit servicing of interest as only 4 rigs were only operating at that time and other equipments were lying idle and waiting to be deployed for the tenders of OIL and ONGC and for these reasons the account has already been classified as SMA 2 by various banks as the account is overdue with all the lenders on account of interest dues since October 2014 and in JLF dated 20.03.2015, the lenders agreed that the CAP for the Co. would be rectification and lenders who have not implemented the package to implement the same.

2.9 It is also stated in the OA that with the passage of time, the Defendants failed to meet with the assurances in regard to their obligation towards the Applicant Bank. Thus, the Defendants have miserably failed and neglected to pay and meet their liabilities towards the Applicant Bank and due to non-payments of EMIs, the account was classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) as per Reserve Bank of India Guidelines on 31.03.2015. Left with no alternative, the Applicant Bank recalled the entire outstanding from the Defendants together with interest and other charges due under the abovementioned facility. In this regard, the Applicant Bank held a number of meetings with the directors / executives of the defendant no. 1 and also requested the defendants no. 1 to 5 who have executed personal guarantees to clear the overdue amounts and regularize the accounts. However, all the defendants have been deliberately neglecting to clear the overdue amounts and to adhere to the original repayment schedules and to repay their liabilities to the applicant bank, which clearly shows that they have no intention / willingness to comply with the aforesaid lawful requests of the applicant bank. Hence, the Applicant Bank on 07.05.2015 sent a recall notice to the defendants and requested to repay the amount with upto date interest & all charges within the period of 15-days and also advised that, failing of which the Applicant Bank shall be constrained to take recourse to legal action including steps enumerated in the SARFAESI Act, filing of suits / claims in competent court / tribunal & other civil / Criminal action against the defendants no. 1 to 5 for recovery of the dues. But after repeated request and recalling notices when the defendants no. 1 to 5 failed to meet with its commitments towards the Applicant Bank. The notice sent to the Defendants were duly served upon, in spite of the service of notice, the defendants failed to regularize / repay the outstanding due amount in the account. Hence, the Applicant Bank has been compelled to file this Application before this Tribunal.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants, and some of the main defendants being defendants no. 2 & 3 and some of the Proforma Defendants being defendants no. 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 26, 27, 29 & 30 appeared through their respective counsels. It is matter of record that Defendants no. 2 & 3 filed a common WS.

3.1 So far as, Defendants no. 4 & 5 are concerned, they did not chose to file their WS. Hence, the case of applicant bank remained uncontested / unrebuted by these defendants.

3.2 Subsequently, due to non-appearance of defendant no. 4, the case was directed to proceed ex parte qua Defendant no. 4 vide Order dated 22.03.2024 of this Tribunal.

3.2 So far as, Proforma Defendants no. 6 to 30 are concerned, respective WS(s) were filed by Defendant no. 8 / Andhra Bank, Defendant no. 15 / UCO Bank, Defendant no. 17 / L&T Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Defendant no. 26

/ Punjab National Bank, Defendant no. 27 / Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Defendant no. 29 / Yes Bank.

So far as, rest of the proforma defendants are concerned, though some of the defendants appeared through their respective counsel(s) but did not chose to file any WS.

It is pertinent to note that no relief has been claimed by the applicant bank qua defendants no. 6 to 30.

4. In their common WS, defendants no. 2 & 3 have taken following main objections:-

- (i) that the instant OA has not been filed by an authorized representative of the Applicant Bank;

- (ii) that this OA is barred by the law of limitation;

- (iii) that the Statement of Account filed by the Applicant is ex-facie wrong, false and incorrect and cannot be relied upon as the rate of interest charged by the Applicant is exorbitant and usurious and includes certain hidden charges to the loan account on various accounts, without the consent of the defendant(s);

- (iv) that the purported recall notice dated 07.05.2015 was never sent by the Applicant Bank to the answering defendants as the Applicant Bank has failed to annex tracking report in this regard;

- (v) that the applicant bank did not declare the account of the Defendant no. 1 as NPA. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that the classification of the account of the defendant no. 1 as NPA has been made, the same has been made without following the RBI guidelines and notifications issued from time to time. Since, the classification of the account of the Defendant no. 1 as NPA is wrong, illegal and incorrect, the instant OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone;

- (vi) that the security documents alleged to be executed by the defendants including deed of hypothecation, loan agreement, deed of guarantee etc. have been drafted in the standard format of the bank which contains several blanks which have been filled by the Applicant Bank after obtaining signatures of the Defendants;

- (vii) that the consent of the answering defendants has not been taken for varying and changing the terms of the Agreement between the Applicant and the Defendant no. 1, hence, the guarantee of the answering defendants stands discharged;

- (viii) that due to the defaults on the part of the Banks, including the Applicant herein, the SDR Scheme could not be materialized and the said scheme also failed. Thus, the answering defendants cannot be burdened due to the default on the part of the Applicant Bank and the instant OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Moreover, necessary orders were also passed by Hon'ble Company Judge, Delhi High Court on 28.07.2018 and the affidavit dated 06.04.2016 filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Co. Pet. No. 446/2013 is relevant;

- (ix) that despite the CDR Scheme and taking fresh guarantees etc., which have already replaced the previous guarantees and other letters, the Applicant Bank is still relying on the original documents, qua which in any case there is no amount outstanding;

- (x) that the OA is barred under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 since the Applicant Bank has already invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and it is only when the dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets that the secure creditor may prefer an application under the RDB Act. In the absence of any proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the instant OA is premature;

- (xi) that numerous terms of the contract between the Defendant no. 1 and the Applicant were varied, without any information or intimation to the answering defendants, therefore, the guarantee of the answering Defendants stands discharged;

- (xii) that the subject matter of the recovery of debt due does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

In the light of above, it has been prayed to dismiss the present OA with exemplary costs.

5. In their respective WS(s), proforma defendants no. 8, 15, 17, 26, 27 & 29 have given details of loans sanctioned by them to the Defendants, security documents executed in this regard as well as details of their separate OA(s) filed against the defendants. They have prayed to direct that the sale proceeds of the mortgaged properties, hypothecated assets and other charged assets shall be distributed amongst the Applicant Bank, other charge holder Banks and FIs including these Proforma Defendants on the basis of their respective ranking of charges on pro-rate basis.

It is pertinent to note here that no relief has been claimed qua defendants no. 6 to 30 by Applicant Bank.

6. It is also important to note here that during the pendency of this OA, one application being IA No. 2281/2022 was filed for seeking substitution of Punjab National Bank in place of Defendant no. 15 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce which was allowed vide order dated 18.09.2024 of this Tribunal.

7. To prove their case, the Applicant Bank / UCO Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Mr. Simanchal Panigrahi, Assistant General Manager of the applicant bank.

7.1 Mr. Simanchal Panigrahi, Officer of Applicant Bank (UCO Bank) has placed reliance upon various documents viz.

- (i) Copy of the informing letter of the change of the name of defendant no. 1 from M/s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd. to SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited (Exhibit-1);

- (ii) Sanction Letter dated 03.02.2010 (Exhibit-2);

- (iii) Board Resolution dated 05.02.2010 (Exhibit-3);

- (iv) Hypothecation Agreement dated 11.02.2010 (Exhibit-4);

- (v) Term Loan Agreement dated 11.02.2010 (AHL-6) (Exhibit-5);

- (vi) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 11.02.2010 (AHL-20) (Exhibit-6);

- (vii) Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. O.P. Garg (AHL-20) (Exhibit-7);

- (viii) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 11.02.2010 (Exhibit-8);

- (ix) Personal Guarantee executed by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 11.02.2010 (Exhibit-9);

- (x) Agreement dated 17.04.2013 for change of Base Rate executed between the applicant bank and defendant no. 1 (Exhibit-10);

- (xi) Flash Report dated 27.06.2013 submitted by defendant no. 1 to the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell (Exhibit-11);

- (xii) Agreement with the borrower(s) on rescheduling / rephrasing of Term Loan dated 30.09.2013 (Exhibit-12);

- (xiii) Term Loan Agreement dated 30.09.2013 (Exhibit-13);

- (xiv) Deed of Hypothecation of movable plant and machinery dated 30.09.2013 (Exhibit-14);

- (xv) Deed of Guarantee by Mr. Padam Singhee dated 30.09.2013 (Exhibit-15);

- (xvi) Deed of Guarantee by Mr. Prem Singhee dated 30.09.2013 (Exhibit-16);

- (xvii) Rescheduling of Term Loan Agreement dated 30.09.2013 (Exhibit-17);

- (xviii) Master Restructuring Agreement dated 30.06.2014 (Exhibit-18);

- (xix) Sponsor Support Agreement dated 28.03.2014 (Exhibit-19);

- (xx) Security Trust Agreement dated 20.03.2014 (Exhibit-20);

- (xxi) Deed of Personal Guarantee by Prem Singhee dated 18.03.2014 (Exhibit-21);

- (xxii) Deed of Personal Guarantee by Padam Singhee dated 18.03.2014 (Exhibit-22);

- (xxiii) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by T.R.S. Technology Private Limited dated 28.03.2014 (Exhibit-23);

- (xxiv) Deed of Corporate Guarantee by Dharti Oil Services Private Ltd. dated 28.03.2014 (Exhibit-24);

- (xxv) Deed of Hypothecation dated 20.03.2014 (Exhibit-25);

- (xxvi) Trust and Retention Account Agreement dated 28.03.2014 (Exhibit-26);

- (xxvii) Sanction Letter dated 10.03.2014 (Exhibit-27);

- (xxviii) Statement of Account of Defendants duly certified as per Banker Books Evidence Act (Exhibit-28);

- (xxix) Copy of Recall Notice dated 07.05.2015 sent issued by the Applicant Bank to the defendants (Exhibit-29).

8. So far as, evidence of Defendants no. 2 & 3 is concerned, they did not chose to file any evidence.

9. So far as, evidence(s) of Proforma Defendants No. 8, 15, 17, 26, 27 & 29 is concerned, it is matter of record that though the said Defendants filed their WS(s) along with documents relied by them, however, some of the Defendants i.e. Defendants no. 14 & 26 filed their respective Evidence(s) by way of affidavit(s) as well. It is pertinent to note here that no relief has been claimed by Applicant Bank qua Proforma Defendants no. 6 to 30.

10. During the pendency of this OA, it was informed by the Ld. counsel for the Applicant Bank that defendant no. 1 is under liquidation as per order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Subsequently, it was informed by Ld. counsel for applicant bank that defendant no. 1 is before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

Moreover, it was also informed by the Ld. counsel for applicant bank that personal insolvency proceedings have been commenced qua defendants no. 2 & 3 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

Further more, it is also informed by Ld. counsel for applicant bank that CIRP proceedings qua defendant no. 5 are also pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

In the light of above, it is clear that Defendants no. 1 to 3 & 5 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

11. Heard Ld. counsel for Applicant and perused the entire record.

11.1 Since, defendants no. 1 to 3 and 5 are already before Ld. NCLT, New Delhi, hence, there is no need to deal with the objections raised by defendants no. 2 & 3 in their common WS.

11.2 Moreover, defendant no. 4 is already ex parte since 22.03.2024. Hence, the case of applicant bank remained uncontested / unrebuted by defendant no. 4.

11.3 So far as, defendants no. 6 to 30 are concerned, they are proforma defendants and no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank against these defendants.

11.4 On the other hand, the witnesses of applicant has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the applicant bank gone unrebuted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the defendants along with pendentelite interest i.e. @13% p.a. and costs as agreed between the parties.

11.5 In this OA, Applicant Bank has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendants no. 1 to 5 wherein the defendant 1 is principal borrower and defendants no. 2 & 3 are personal guarantors and defendants no. 4 & 5 are corporate guarantors.

11.6 It is matter of record that defendant no. 1 is under liquidation before Ld. NCLT, Delhi whereas personal insolvency proceedings have been commenced qua defendants no. 2 & 3. Moreover, CIRP proceedings qua defendant no. 5 are also pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

In these circumstances, no final order can be passed qua defendants no. 1 to 3 & 5, at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 1 to 3 and 5 in case Liquidation proceedings / CIRP proceedings / personal insolvency proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case applicant Bank receives any amount from Liquidation / CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

11.7 Consequently, TA No. 322/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of applicant against defendant no. 4 only (being corporate guarantor to the Borrower company i.e. defendant no. 1), who is liable to pay the dues of the applicant along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @13% p.a., from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 322/2022 stands allowed in favour of Applicant Bank and against the Defendant no. 4 for a sum of Rs. 106,36,80,820.20 (Rupees One Hundred Six Crore Thirty Six Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty and Paise Twenty only) along with pendentelite and future interest @13% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till the date of actual and final realization along with costs of this OA. Now Defendant no. 4 is directed to pay to the Applicant Bank the aforesaid amount, within 30 days, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc., if any, belonging to the defendant no. 4.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of defendant no. 4.

- (ii) Since defendants no. 1 to 3 & 5 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed qua defendants no. 1 to 3 & 5, at this stage (as discussed above).

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 1 to 3 and 5 in case Liquidation proceedings / CIRP proceedings / personal insolvency proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case applicant Bank receives any amount from Liquidation / CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

- (iii) It is also directed that the sale proceeds of the secured assets shall be distributed between the Applicant and proforma defendants, as per inter-se agreements executed amongst them.

- (iv) It is also directed that the applicant shall adjust the amount(s), if any, received from the defendants during the pendency of this case.

- (v) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer-II, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi.

- (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 05.06.2026.

- (vii) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

File be closed and consigned to records.

30.03.2026 (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 30.03.2026