INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK vs M/S ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED on 19 May 2026

1. 1. This matter is taken up by this Tribunal through Hybrid Mode.

2. 2. Today, captioned TA is listed for pronouncement of final order. Accordingly, final order prepared in separate sheets, signed and pronounced.

3. 3. File be closed and consigned to record room.

19.05.2026

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

This image shows a blank page with a light beige or cream-colored background. There are several faint, thin vertical lines running down the page, which appear to be scanning artifacts or perhaps the edges of the paper. A few very small, dark specks are scattered across the surface, likely due to dust or imperfections in the paper or the scanning process. The overall texture is slightly grainy.

**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, DELHI** **4^th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building,** **Parliament Street, New Delhi**

**PRESIDING OFFICER : MR. SHIV KUMAR - I**

(TA No. : 398/2022)

**Indian Overseas Bank**

**Having its Head Office at :**

763, Anna Salai, Chennai-2

**One of its branches at :**

Indian Overseas Bank 3^rd Floor, Rachna Building, 2, Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110008

**.....Applicant Bank**

**Versus**

1. 1. **M/s Era Infra Engineering Limited** Through Resolutional Professional (R.P.)

**Registered Office:**

1107, Indraparakash Building,

New Delhi – 110001

**Corporate Office:**

C-56/41, Sector-62, Noida, UP-201303

**(Name of Defendant no. 1 has already been deleted from the array of parties vide Dated 17.09.2025 passed in IA No. 738/2025 by this Tribunal)**

1. 2. **Mr. Hem Singh Bharana** Director & Guarantor M/s Era Infra Engineering Limited C-146, 1^st Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi -110017

1. 3. **M/s Alvita Realtors Pvt. Ltd.** (Mortgagor & Guarantor) Through its Director

**Having Registered Office:**

At B-165, Flat No. D,


Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110096

**Also at :**

130, 1^st Floor, Masjid Moth, South Extension, Part-II,

4. **M/s Dev Rishabh Estate Pvt. Ltd.** (Mortgagor & Guarantor) Through its Director

**Having Registered Office:**

At B-165, Flat No. D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110096

**Also at :**

130, 1^st Floor, Masjid Moth, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi – 110049

5. **M/s Jiffy Realtors Pvt. Ltd.** (Mortgagor & Guarantor) Through its Director

**Having Registered Office:**

At B-165, Flat No. D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110096

6. **M/s Demas Developers Pvt. Ltd.** (Mortgagor & Guarantor) Through its Director

**Having Registered Office:**

At B-165, Flat No. D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110096

7. **M/s Lead Financial Services Ltd.**

**Registered Office at**

101, Sitaram Mansion, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005

8. **M/s Zedek Realtors Pvt. Ltd.** (Corporate Guarantor)

**Registered Office :**

1107, Indraprakash Building,

New Delhi – 01

**Also at**

370-371/2, 3^rd Floor, Sahi Hospital Road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi – 110014

9. **M/s Yarikh Realtors Pvt. Ltd.** (Corporate Guarantor)

**Registered Office :**

1107, Indraprakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 01

**Also at**

370-371/2, 3^rd Floor, Sahi Hospital Road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi – 110014

10. **M/s Paulo Realtech Pvt. Ltd.** (Corporate Guarantor)

**Registered Office :**

House No. 130, First Floor, Masjid Moth, South Extension Part-II,

**Also at**

370-371/2, 3^rd Floor, Sahi Hospital Road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi – 110014

11. **Union Bank of India** Industrial Finance Branch M-11, Connaught Circus, New Delhi – 110001

12. **Punjab National Bank** (Erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) A-Block, A-30 to 33, Rajiv Chowk, 1^st Floor,

New Delhi – 110001

**(name of Punjab National Bank was substituted in place of Oriental Bank of Commerce vide Order dated 02.04.2024 passed in IA No. 215/2024 by this Tribunal)**

**13. State Bank of India**

Stressed Assets Management Branch 12^th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, Janpath, New Delhi – 110001

**14. Bank of India**

Large Corporate Branch, 10^th Floor, Chandrlok Building, Janpath, Near Tolstoy Mag, New Delhi – 110001

**15. Punjab National Bank**

Tolstoy Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001

**16. Union Bank of India**

(erstwhile Corporation Bank) IFB Branch, 10^th Floor, 18/20, Hindustan House, K.G. Marg, New Delhi – 110001

**(name of Union Bank of India was substituted in place of Corporation Bank vide Order dated 02.04.2024 passed in IA No. 215/2024 by this Tribunal)**

**17. Canara Bank**

IFB WTC, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001

**18. IDBI Bank Limited**

3^rd Floor, Indian Red Cross Society Building, 1, Red Cross Road, New Delhi – 110001

**19. Bank of Maharashtra**

A-13, South Extension-I, New Delhi

20. **Punjab National Bank** (erstwhile United Bank of India) Treasury Branch, United Tower, I&FM Department, 4^th Floor, 11, HemantaBasu Sarai, Kolkata – 700001 **(name of Punjab National Bank was substituted in place of United Bank of India vide Order dated 02.04.2024 passed in IA No. 215/2024 by this Tribunal)**

21. **Bank of Baroda** (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Ground Floor, Vijaya Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001 **(name of Bank of Baroda was substituted in place of Vijaya Bank vide Order dated 02.04.2024 passed in IA No. 215/2024 by this Tribunal)**

22. **Indian Bank** (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) 2, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700001 **(name of Indian Bank was substituted in place of Allahabad Bank vide Order dated 02.04.2024 passed in IA No. 215/2024 by this Tribunal)**

23. **Bank of Baroda** Baroda Sun Tower, 4^th & 5^th Floor, C-34, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400005

24. **Canara Bank** (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Corporate Finance Branch, Sarojini House, 6, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi – 110001 **(name of Canara Bank was substituted in place of Syndicate Bank vide Order dated 02.04.2024 passed in IA No. 215/2024 by this Tribunal)**

25. **Central Bank of India** Treasury Department, Chandramukhi Building,

Nariman Point,

**26. UCO Bank**

Flagship Corporate Br, UCO Bank Building, 359 DN Road, FORT, Mumbai – 400001

**Also at**

10, BTM Sarani, Barbourne Road, 7^th Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700001

**27. General Insurance Corporation of India**

Suraksha 170, J Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400005

**28. Karnataka Bank Limited**

Connaught Place Branch, K-38, Chaudhary Building, Outer Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001

**29. Life Insurance Corporation of India**

1^st Floor, Yogakeshema Central Office, Jeevan Bhima Marg, P B No. 19953, Nariman Point,

**30. Punjab & Sind Bank**

7^th Floor, 21, Bank House, Rajinder, New Delhi – 110008

**31. NPA Trustee A/c LIC Pension Fund Scheme I**

Yogakshema East Wingh, 7^th Floor, Jeevan Bima Mag, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021

.....Defendants

**Date of Institution: 21.07.2020**

**Date of reserving the Order : 12.05.2026**

**Date of Pronouncement: 19.05.2026**

Counsels : Mr. Ronnie S. Brara, for Applicant Bank.

Mr. Pallav Saxena, for Defendants no. 3 to 7.

Mr. R.P. Vats, for Defendant no. 15 / PNB.

Mr. A.N. Tiwari, for Defendants no. 17 & 24 i.e. Canara Bank.

Mr. Aniket Rohan, for Defendant no. 29 / LIC of India.

None for other defendants.

**Defendants no. 1 & 2 are before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.**

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant Bank, on 22.07.2020, through Mr. Sanjay Kishore, Assistant General Manager, being the authorized officer of the Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants no. 2 to 10 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1091,94,59,730.27 (Rupees One Thousand Ninety One Crore Ninety Four Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty and Paise Twenty Seven only) with pendentelite and future interest @13.95% p.a. till the date of actual realization along with all costs, charges, expenses & other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 182/2020 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 November 2022 and was numbered at TA-398/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, is a body corporate constituted by and under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) 1978. It is further stated that the Applicant Bank is filing the present OA through Sh. Sanjay Kishore, Assistant General Manager, its Authorized Representative, who is competent and authorized to institute, sign, verify the plaint and institute the OA and to compete all the legal formalities on behalf of the applicant bank in terms of Power of Attorney dated 01.06.2001 executed by Applicant Bank in his favour.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Limited is a public limited Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in the business of engineering, procurement and construction of the roads, highways, power, railways metro, aviation, transmission, distribution, industrial projects etc. The aforesaid Company, a principal borrower, availed various financial facilities under the consortium arrangement and individually from the Applicant Bank. It is pertinent to mention that Union Bank of India has filed a Petition being (IB)-190(PB)/2017 before the Adjudicating Authority i.e NCLT, New Delhi under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and vide Order dated 08.05.2018, the aforesaid insolvency petition has been admitted by Hon'ble NCLT and moratorium as provided under Section 14 of IBC has commence. Hence, the present OA is being filed for recovery of the amount outstanding from the Guarantors / Mortgagors i.e. Defendants no. 2 to 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the purpose of completion of the facts, the principal borrower i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Limited has been impleaded here as a Performa Party and the present OA is restricted to the personal guarantor / mortgagor i.e. the Defendants no. 2 to 10.

The Defendant no. 2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of the Defendant no. 1 Company and has from time to time executed personal guarantee to secure the financial / credit facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 Company. Thus, Defendant no. 2 is jointly and severally liable to clear the entire dues payable to the Applicant Bank by Defendant no. 1.

Further, the Defendants no. 3 to 10 have been enjoined to the present OA as its Corporate Guarantors and mortgagors, having executed irrevocable, unconditional, joint and several corporate guarantee and also executed the documents to mortgage their respective immovable properties for securing Defendant no. 1 Company's obligations including repayment of its debt and liabilities. The liability of Defendants no. 2 to 10 is co-extensive with that of the Principal Debtor and the amount due from the guarantors / mortgages would constitute a debt qua the Applicant. Thus, the Defendants no. 2 to 10 are jointly and severally liable to clear entire dues payable to the Applicant Bank by Defendant no. 1.

So far as, Defendants no. 11 to 31 are concerned, they are other consortium lenders of the Defendant no. 1 Company, with the lead Bank as Union Bank of India. Thus, these Defendants have been impleaded herein as Performa parties.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that in the year 2007, the Defendant no. 1 approached the Applicant Bank / IOB for availing various financial / credit facilities from the Applicant Bank, and represented that Defendant no. 1 Company is a credit worthy company and would be in a position to repay the facilities availed. It is further stated that the Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 05.12.2007 sanctioned various financial / credit facilities primarily in the nature of 'Cash Credit', 'Letter of Guarantee' and 'Letter of Credit'. Details of the sanctioned facilities are as under:-

<thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Cash Credit</td> <td>75.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Letter of Credit</td> <td>25.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Letter of Guarantee</td> <td>100.00</td> </tr> <tr>

</tr> </tbody> </table>

It is stated in the OA that the aforesaid Limit was secured by personal guarantee of Sh. Hem Singh Bharana/Defendant no. 2; Sh. Narain Vir Singh; Smt. Rekha Bharana, Sh. Dheeraj Singh Bharana; Sh. Brij Singh Bharana; Sh. Chiranji; Smt. Jagmali Devi; Sh. Arvind Kumar; Sh. Surinder Kumar; Sh. Ghanshyam and Sh. Om Prakash. It is also stated that the entire credit limit sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1 company was primarily / collaterally secured by various securities i.e. Hypothecation of fully paid stocks & book debts not older than 90-days as well as collateral security on pari passu basis with other banks in consortium over properties, as detailed in Para 5(6) (2) (a) to (m) of the OA.

Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction letter dated 05.12.2007, Defendants executed / furnished various security and loan documents which are as follows:-

- (ii) Two Letters both dated 13.12.2007 exchanged between the Applicant Bank and lead Bank i.e. Union Bank of India / Defendant no. 11 wherein each other authorized to mark pari-passu and to make mention of the pri-passu charges in favour of each other before the Registrar of Companies;

- (iii) Guarantees for Cash Credit (4 in number) dated 14.12.2007 and 19.12.2017 executed by Sh. Hem Singh Bharana/Defendant no. 2; Sh. Narain Vir Singh; Smt. Rekha Bharana, Sh. Dheeraj Singh Bharana; Sh. Brij Singh Bharana; Sh. Chiranji; Smt. Jagmali Devi; Sh. Arvind Kumar; Sh. Surinder Kumar; Sh. Ghanshyam and Sh. Om Prakash;

- (iv) General Counter Guarantee dated 14.12.2007 furnished by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (v) Letter of Hypothecation (for seeking machineries / vehicles / goods / book debts) dated 14.12.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (vi) Hypothecation Book Debts dated 14.12.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (vii) Letter of Hypothecation (in case of open advances only) dated 14.12.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (viii) Three Demand Promissory Notes, all dated 14.12.2007, for an amount of Rs. 75.0 Crore, Rs.

25.0 Crore and Rs. 100.0 Crore furnished by Defendant no. 1 to Applicant Bank.

2.3 It is further stated in the OA that in the year 2011, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the Applicant Bank / IOB for availing various financial / credit facilities from the Applicant Bank, and represented that Defendant no. 1 Company is a credit worthy company and would be in a position to repay the facilities availed. It is further stated that the Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 02.06.2011 sanctioned various financial / credit facilities as mentioned herein below:-

<thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Cash Credit (CC)</td> <td>280.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sub Limited under CC</td> <td>(225.00)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Letter of Credit</td> <td>90.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Letter of Guarantee</td> <td>210.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Unsecured Short Term Loan<br/>(Outside of Consortium)</td> <td>160.00</td> </tr> <tr>

</tr> </tbody> </table>

It is stated in the OA that the aforesaid Limit was secured by personal guarantee of Sh. Hem Singh Bharana/Defendant no. 2 and Corporate Guarantee of M/s Lead Financial Services Ltd. / Defendant no. 7. It is also stated that the entire credit limit sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1 company was primarily / collaterally secured by various securities i.e. Hypothecation of fully paid stocks & book debt net block assets of the Company on pari passu basis with other banks in consortium over lease hold property bearing no. 56/41, Block – C, Sector-62, Noida, owned by M/s Lead Financial Services Ltd. [details given in Para 5(8) of the OA].

Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction letter dated 02.06.2011, Defendants executed / furnished various security and loan documents which are as follows:-

- (ii) Request Letter dated 14.06.2011 of Defendant no. 1 requesting the Applicant Bank to disburse Rs. 100.00 Crore on individual documents basis. It was also requested that the Cash Credit Limit be converted into the WCDL;

- (iii) Letter dated 10.06.2011 sent by the Applicant Bank and Lead Bank i.e. Union Bank of India / Defendant no. 11 whereby other consortium lenders were authorized to mark pari-passu and to make mention of the pari-passu charges in favour of each other before the Registrar of Companies;

- (iv) Guarantees for Cash Credit dated 14.06.2011 executed by Sh. Hem Singh Bharana/Defendant no. 2;

- (v) General Counter Guarantee dated 14.06.2011 furnished by Defendant no. 1 Company;

- (vi) Guarantee for Cash Credit dated 14.06.2011 executed by M/s Lead Financial Services / Defendant no. 7 as well as Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 of Defendant no. 7;

- (vii) Two Letters of Hypothecation (for securing machineries / vehicles / goods / book debts) both dated 14.06.2011 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (viii) Hypothecation Book Debts dated 14.06.2011 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (ix) Letter of Hypothecation (in case of open advances only) dated 14.06.2011 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (x) Three Demand Promissory Notes, all dated 14.06.2011, for an amount of Rs. 90.0 Crore; Rs. 210.0 Crore and Rs. 280.0 Crore furnished by Defendant no. 1 to Applicant Bank;

- (xi) Letter dated 14.06.2011 of Defendant no. 1 acknowledging that the Demand Promissory Note(s) given to the Applicant Bank as a security were signed by it;

- (xii) Consent-cum-Authorization Letters, both dated 14.06.2011, executed by Defendants no. 1 & 2 respectively;

- (xiii) Letter of Undertaking 14.06.2011 furnished by Defendant no. 1 company by which it undertook that it would not create any further charge over its property and assets including uncalled capital;

- (xiv) Two Letters dated 15.06.2011 and 25.10.2011 furnished by Defendant no. 1 wherein request was made to carve out Rs. 100.0 crore as demand loan out of Cash Credit of Rs. 280.0 Crore. Further, availing the limit of Demand Loan was acknowledged and accepted by the Defendant no. 1 by passing a Board Resolution dated 25.10.2011.

2.4 It is further stated in the OA that in the year 2012, the Defendant no. 1 again approached the Applicant Bank / IOB for availing various financial / credit facilities from the Applicant Bank, and represented that Defendant no. 1 Company is a credit worthy company and would be in a position to repay the facilities availed. It is further stated that the Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 15.11.2012 sanctioned various financial / credit facilities as mentioned herein below:-

<thead> <tr> <th><b>Nature of Facilities</b></th> <th><b>Limit (Rs. in Crores)</b></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Corporate Term Loan</td> <td>150.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cash Credit (CC)</td> <td>220.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sub Limit under CC</td> <td>(150.00)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Letter of Credit</td> <td>80.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Letter of Guarantee</td> <td>75.00</td> </tr> <tr>

</tr> </tbody> </table>

It is stated in the OA that the aforesaid Limit was secured by personal guarantee of Sh. Hem Singh Bharana/Defendant no. 2 and Corporate Guarantee of M/s Lead Financial Services Ltd. / Defendant no. 7 and owners of the mortgaged properties. Apart from the aforesaid, in order to secure the Corporate Term Loan exclusively, the Defendants no. 3 to 6 also furnished their respective corporate guarantee and mortgaged their respective immovable properties, as mentioned in the OA. It is also stated that the entire credit limit sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1 company was primarily / collaterally secured by various securities i.e.

- (i) The Cash Credit Facility was collaterally secured by Hypothecation of fully paid stocks & book debt net block assets of the Company on pari passu basis with other banks with other consortium lenders in consortium lenders and

- (ii) By way of Equitable Mortgage on pari passu basis with other banks in consortium over lease hold property bearing no. 56/41, Block – C, Sector-62, Noida, owned by M/s Lead Financial Services Ltd. and other immovable properties owned by the Defendants no. 3 to 6, as mentioned in Para 11 of OA.

Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction letter dated 15.11.2012, Defendants executed / furnished various security and loan documents which are as follows:-

- (ii) Guarantees for Cash Credit dated 17.01.2013 executed by Sh. Hem Singh Bharana / Defendant no. 2;

- (iii) Request Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 1 requesting the Applicant Bank to disburse Rs. 150.00 Crore on individual documents basis;

- (iv) Guarantees for Cash Credit etc. (4 in numbers) all dated 17.01.2013 executed by Defendants no. 3 to 6 along with the Board resolution dated 07.06.2011;

- (v) Demand Promissory Note dated 17.01.2013 for an amount of Rs. 150.0 Crore furnished by Defendant no. 1 to Applicant Bank;

- (vi) Respective Consent-cum-Authorization Letters (6 in number), all dated 17.01.2013, executed by Defendants no. 1 to 6;

- (vii) Letter of Undertaking 17.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 1 company by which it undertook that it would not create any further charge over its property and assets including uncalled capital;

- (viii) Letter dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 1 company by which it undertook that the proceeds of the Corporate Term Loan shall not be used for investment in real estate and capital market etc.

- (ix) Another Letter of Undertaking for repayment of instalments in respect of Corporate Term Loan dated 17.01.2013 furnished by Defendants no. 1 to 6;

- (x) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 3 i.e. M/s Alvita Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 3 whereby Defendant no. 3 undertook and confirmed that the company shall complete necessary formalities with respect to recording the name of Applicant Bank in the revenue record with respect to the mortgaged properties [as detailed in Para 5 (11) (x) (a & b) of the OA;

- (xi) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 4 i.e. M/s Dev Rishabh Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 4 whereby Defendant no. 4 undertook and confirmed that the company shall complete necessary formalities with respect to recording the name of Applicant Bank in the revenue record with respect to the mortgaged 

properties [as detailed in Para 5 (11) (xi) (a to g) of the OA;

- (xii) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 5 i.e. M/s Jiffy Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 5 whereby Defendant no. 5 undertook and confirmed that the company shall complete necessary formalities with respect to recording the name of Applicant Bank in the revenue record with respect to the mortgaged properties [as detailed in Para 5 (11) (xii) (a) of the OA;

- (xiii) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 6 i.e. M/s Demas Developers Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 6 whereby Defendant no. 4 undertook and confirmed that the company shall complete necessary formalities with respect to recording the name of Applicant Bank in the revenue record with respect to the mortgaged properties [as detailed in Para 5 (11) (xiii) (a & b) of the OA.

2.5 It is stated in the OA that the aforesaid credit facilities were sanctioned under the consortium arrangement with various Banks and Financial Institutions, various joint documents were executed amongst the Borrowers and Consortium Lenders. The aforesaid joint documents being voluminous in nature are not annexed, however, joint documents executed after restructuring of the facilities have been annexed herein below.

2.6 It is further stated in the OA that in or around March, 2014, Defendant no. 1 informed the Applicant Bank and the other Consortium Lenders that the Defendant no. 1 was facing liquidity constraints due to various reasons as alleged by the Defendant no. 1, and as such, approached the CDR Lenders for restructuring of its existing debts under the aegis of corporate debt restructuring mechanism. Thus, at the request of the Defendant no. 1 Company, the Applicant and various other banks and financial institutions, being part of the consortium participated in the CDR restructuring process and agreed to restructure Defendant no. 1 Company's then existing debt through CDR mechanism in a bonafide belief that the Defendant no. 1 would duly repay the dues.

Thus, on 29.03.2014, the CDR Empowered Group (CDR EG") approved a restructuring package and the same was conveyed to the Defendant no. 1 vide letter of approval dated 29.03.2014.

Under the CDR Process, the Defendant no. 1, Union Bank of India (UBI) was designated as the Monitoring Institution ("MC") and monitored all aspects of implementation of the CDR package. The CDR process and restructuring of the facilities were finally formulized vide Master Restructuring Agreement dated 29.03.2014 (MRA) entered into between the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank and other CDR lenders i.e. Allahabad Bank, Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Bank of Maharashtra, Canara Bank, Central Bank of India, Corporation Bank, General Insurance Corporation of India, IDBI Bank Ltd., State Bank of India, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Life Insurance Corporation of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Punjab and Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad (merged with SBI), Syndicate Bank, UCO Bank, Union Bank of India, United Bank of India, Vijaya Bank, NPA Trustee Account LIC Pension Fraud Scheme I (the Consortium Lenders) comprising of various terms and conditions duly signed and agreed by the parties governing the restructured facilities and the Defendant no. 1 agreed to provide certain additional securities in consideration of restructuring [details of MRA as well as relevant terms of the MRA dated 29.03.2014 are given in Para 5(15) & (16) of the OA].

Further more, under the CDR restructuring package, various securities were proposed to be pooled [details of same as well as sharing pattern to the CDR lenders have been given in Para 5(17) of the OA].

It is stated in the OA that under the CDR restructuring package, the Defendant no. 1 had executed the following Collateral Security *pari-passu* with the Applicant Bank along with other CDR lenders:-

- (i) Personal Guarantee of Sh. H.S. Bharana in favour of Security Trustee for the benefit of all the CDR Lenders;

- (ii) Pledge of 100% shareholding of promoters / promoters group to the CDR Lenders within 18 months. Out of 100% shareholding , 51% of promoters holdings to be pledged within 6-months;

- (iii) First charge by way of mortgage on the freehold land of the Defendant no. 1 Company situated at District Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh in the name of Defendants no. 8 to 10 [details given in Para 5(18)(iii) of the OA];

- (iv) Residual charge over the properties in the name of the promoters of Defendant no. 1 Company being developed by Adel Landmarks Ltd;

- (v) Residual charge over the properties owned and charged to the lenders of EIEL;

- (vi) Corporate Guarantee by Defendants no. 8 to 10 was also given.

In addition to the guarantees already proved to the Applicant bank separately in respect of each individual facility availed by Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank was further secured by a personal Guarantee dated 29.03.2014 executed by Sh. H.S. Bharana / Defendant no. 2 in favour of SBICAP Trustee Services Ltd. as personal guarantor for the benefit of all the banks participating in the CDR mechanism including the Applicant Bank.

It is also stated that in terms of Clause 7.4 of the MRA, the revocation of the MRA will have no impact on the additional securities created by Defendant no. 1 company, including the Personal Guarantee executed by the Defendant no. 2 in favour of SBICAP Trustee Services Ltd. Therefore, any additional collateral and security created by the Defendant no. 1 Company in favour of the Applicant Bank subsists and are enforceable in law.

2.8 It is stated in the OA that in furtherance of the MRA, on request and representation of the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank i.e. IOB again sanctioned / renewed various credit facilities vide its Sanction Letter dated 24.04.2014. Details of the sanctioned facilities are as under:-

<thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Cash Credit</td> <td>157.68</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Corporate Term Loan</td> <td>149.84</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Priority Term Loan</td> <td>12.47</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL-I)</td> <td>62.32</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL-II)</td> <td>171.56</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL)</td> <td>90.79</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Letter of Guarantee</td> <td>69.28</td> </tr> <tr>

<td>40.16</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

The details of security for aforesaid Facilities have been given in Para 5(21) of the OA.

It is stated in the OA that pursuant to MRA, the Applicant Bank, Defendant no. 1, the CDR Lenders and SBICAP Trustee Services Ltd. (Security Trustee) entered into a Security Trustee Agreement dated 19.05.2014 [details given in Para 5(22) of the OA].

Further more, an irrevocable power of attorney dated 15.05.2014 was also executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Limited (Security Trustee) for and on behalf of the Lender Banks [details given in Para 5(23) of the OA].

Thereafter, an amendment was proposed by the Defendant no. 1 and accordingly, an Amendment Agreement to the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 19.05.2014 was executed comprising of various amended / modified terms and conditions duly signed and agreed by the parties governing the restructuring facilities. It was agreed, apart from various other amendments, the Defendant no. 7 was added as a corporate guarantor in respect of the facilities as were restructured pursuant to the MRA, and Defendant no. 7 agreed to repay the entire facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1.

It is stated in the OA that pursuant to MRA, the Applicant Bank, Defendant no. 1, the CDR Lenders and SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Trustee of the trust and retention account) entered into a Trust and Retention Account Agreement dated 19.05.2014 (Trust and Retention Account Agreement) [details given in Para 5(25) of the OA].

It is also stated in the OA that in addition to the guarantees already provided to the Applicant Bank separately in respect of each individual facility availed by the Defendant no. 1 under the MRA, the Applicant Bank was further secured by a Corporate Guarantee dated 31.03.2015 executed by Defendant no. 8 in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Limited as guarantor for the benefit of all the banks participating in the CDR mechanism including the Applicant Bank. Moreover, as per the Corporate Guarantee, various properties situated at Village Chichgohan (Khandwa) were also mortgaged by Defendant no. 8 [details of property have been given in Para 5(26) of the OA].

Moreover, as per the Corporate Guarantee executed by the Defendant no. 9 various properties situated at Village Chichgohan (Khandwa) as well as Village Attar (Khandwa) were mortgaged by Defendant no. 9 [details of property have been given in Para 5(26) of the OA].

Further more, as per the Corporate Guarantee executed by the Defendant no. 10 various properties situated at Village Attar (Khandwa) were mortgaged by Defendant no. 10 [details of property have been given in Para 5(26) of the OA].

It is stated in the OA that the original Title Deeds of the property documents are not available with the Applicant Bank and the same are deposited with the Security Trustee.

It is further stated in the OA that in addition to the Corporate Bank Guarantees, Defendant no. 2 also provided an Affidavit in support of the Personal Guarantee, inter-alia stating the assets and liabilities of Defendant no. 2 on 31.03.2015.

2.9 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1, vide its Revival Letters dated 01.10.2015 and 22.12.2016 acknowledged the debt due and payable to the Applicant Bank for the purpose of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

Further, for the purpose of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the Defendant no. 1 Company, vide another Revival Letter dated 21.01.2017, acknowledged the execution of various joint documents and it was confirmed that all the financing and security document in favour of all consortium members are subsisting, valid, effective and fully enforceable against them.

Moreover, the Defendant no. 1, vide the revival Letters dated 07.05.2018 again acknowledged the debt due and payable to the Applicant Bank for the purpose of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

It is stated in the OA that as per the provisions of law, any acknowledgement made by the Principal Borrower is binding upon all the guarantors and mortgagors too. Hence, the aforesaid Revival Letters furnished by the Defendant no. 1 / Principal Borrower is binding upon all the Defendants no. 2 to 10.

2.10 It is stated in the OA that since the amounts as due and payable by the Defendants were neither being paid by the Defendants nor the account was being regularized by the Defendants, the account was, thus, declared as a non performing asset (NPA) on 01.07.2015. It is further stated that despite the various requests and representations, the account of the Defendant no. 1 company could not be regularized, hence, the Applicant Bank had no option but to recall the entire credit facilities sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1 inter-alia, vide Recall Notice dated 21.12.2019 and 06.03.2020, the Defendants no. 2 to 10 were called upon to pay the entire amount outstanding for a sum of Rs. 1091,94,59,730.27 as on 29.02.2020 in respect with the credit facilities sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1. Further, vide the said recall notice, the personal and corporate guarantees of the Defendants no. 2 to 10 were also invoked.

It is stated in the OA that vide Letter dated 28.12.2019, the Defendant no. 2, on the letter head of Defendant no. 1 replied to the aforesaid Recall Notice dated 21.12.2019 inter-alia admitting its liability towards Applicant Bank.

2.11 It is stated in the OA that as on date i.e. on 29.02.2020, the amount due and payable is Rs. 1091,94,59,730.27 inclusive un-debited interest. It is also stated that in the circumstances set out herein above, it is clear that the Defendants no. 2 to 10 have clearly defaulted in complying with its obligations of repaying the various credit facilities availed from the Applicant Bank. with the obligations with it.

It is further stated that, the Defendants are liable to pay the aforesaid outstanding dues to the Applicant Bank and the same is admitted and acknowledged by the Defendant no. 1 in its Balance Sheet for the year ended 31.03.2017 in which the Defendant no. 1 has expressly admitted a liability of an amount of Rs. 220.80 Crore towards Principal and Interest due and payable by the Defendant no. 1.

2.12 It is stated in the OA that the Defendants have failed to maintain the financial discipline and have defaulted in payment of the amounts outstanding. Thus, in view of the failure on the part of the Defendants no. 2 to 10, the applicant bank has been compelled to file this OA before this Tribunal.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendants, and initially, some of the Defendants i.e. Defendants no. 1 to 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24 & 29 appeared through their respective counsels but the respective WS(s) / Reply(s) were filed by Defendant nos. 1, 17, 19 and 24 (Performa Defendants) only.

3.1 It is pertinent to note here that due to non-appearance, the case was proceed ex parte against Defendants no. 3 to 8

& 10 vide Order dated 10.06.2022 and thereafter, case was again proceeded ex parte qua Defendants no. 3 to 10 vide Order dated 29.09.2022. It is matter of record that till that time, none of these Defendants had filed their WS/Reply.

3.2 It is also important to note here that during the pendency of the OA, Defendant no. 7 i.e. M/s Lead Financial Services filed IA No. 114/2024 to recall ex parte Order(s) dated 10.06.2022 & 29.09.2022, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 29.05.2024 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 15-days.

Thereafter, Defendant no. 7 filed its WS/Reply raising various objections.

3.3 So far as, defendants no. 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21 to 23, 25 to 28, 30 & 31 are concerned, they neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed any WS.

It is also matter of record that defendants no. 11 to 31 have been impleaded as Performa Defendants in this OA and no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank qua these defendants.

3.4 In the present matter, Defendant no. 1 / Principal Borrower has filed its Reply to this OA through Resolution Professional of Era Infra Engineering Limited stating therein that Defendant no. 1 is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in terms of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC 2016) vide Order dated 08.05.2018 passed by Ld. NCLT, Principal Bench at New Delhi in CP (IB) No.


190(PB) of 2017. It is stated in the Reply that the Ld. NCLT appointed Mr. Rajiv Chakraborty as the interim resolution professional of Respondent no. 1 pursuant to order dated 08.05.2018. Thereafter, pursuant to Orders date 14.11.2019 and 02.12.2019 passed by Ld. NCLT, Mr. Rajiv Chakraborty was directed to continue as the Resolution Professional of Respondent no. 1.

It is further stated in the Reply that in terms of Section 14 of IBC and the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by Ld. NCLT, moratorium is applicable on Respondent no. 1 during the CIRP of respondent and there is prohibition of the present case for far as it extends to the Respondent no. 1 herein. Hence, request is made to remove the Respondent no. 1 from the array of respondents till the pendency of CIRP of the Respondent no. 1.

In support of its WS, Defendant no. 1 has filed copy of orders dated 08.05.2018, 14.11.2019 and 02.12.2019 passed by Ld. NCLT (Annexure R-1-colly).

3.5 So far as, Defendant no. 7 is concerned, it has raised following main objections in its WS :-

- (i) Defendant no. 7 has raised an objection that it is necessary to direct the Applicant Bank to implead the Resolution Professional appointed by NCLT for the borrower company i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Private Limited (Defendant no. 1 herein) in the present proceedings before going ahead with further proceedings in the present OA. It is stated that the facts related to sanctioning of credit facilities and the circumstances under which the alleged guarantee and alleged mortgage came to be created in favour of the consortium of banks will be available only with the Borrower Company which record is essential for adjudication of liability against the defendants and specifically against the answering Defendant no. 7. Moreover, the records relating to the present case are in possession of IRP being in charge of the affairs of the borrower company which contains material facts which affects the adjudication of the liability of the alleged guarantee / mortgage relied upon by the Applicant Bank as against the Defendant no. 7 in these proceedings.

- (ii) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 7 is that the documents allegedly executed by and on behalf of the answering Defendant no. 7 are enforceable as against the answering Defendant no. 7 only to the extent permitted by Board Resolution and not beyond that, as the same would be ultra vires the powers vested in such executants.

- (iii) Defendant no. 7 has also taken a plea that answering Defendant no. 7 is neither an associate company nor a group company nor a subsidiary company of M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. the Borrower in the case and there has never been any express or implied representation on behalf of Defendant no. 7 that it is part or group or associate or subsidiary of M/s Era Infra Engineering. Moreover, answering Defendant was never director of Era Enfra Engineering Ltd.


(iv) Next objection of defendant no. 7 is that the Applicant Bank in these proceedings has sought a Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs. 1091,94,59,730.27 against Defendants no. 2 to 10 which includes Defendant no. 7 and for recovery of the said amount from the sale of assets belonging to Defendant no. 7 amongst others and specifically by sale of Land situated at Plot No. 56/41, Block-C, Sector-62, Noida – 201301, U.P. belonging to answering Defendant claiming a right on the said property as security. However, the same is false, wrong and contrary to the record of the case and wrong as per documents relied upon by the Applicant Bank itself. It is specifically asserted that the documents relied upon by the Applicant Bank to show alleged guarantee and mortgage allegedly created by the answering Defendant are no more valid as the answering Defendant as answering Defendant was never a party to the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 29.03.2014 and also to the amendment agreement to Master Restructuring Agreement dated 19.05.2014 by which the novation / incorporation of sections or provisions to various terms and conditions was permitted by the applicant bank under the CDR Package. It is further stated that no guarantee agreement was ever executed by the Defendant no. 6 under novated contracts as there is no stipulation for extending corporate guarantee by the answering defendant no. 7 in the letter of Restructure of Debt under CDR Renewal of credit limits / Sanction of Priority Loan dated 29.03.2014 issued by the CDR Empowered Group. In view of the admitted position that the answering Defendant is not part of the novation under CDR by which all the earlier sanctioned terms and conditions entered into between the parties before executing Master Restructuring Agreement stood amended and the rights under the earlier documents got eroded.

- (v) Next plea of Defendant no. 7 is that the OA is liable to be dismissed in entirety in view of the false case set up / made out as against the Defendant no. 7 and apart from the same, a criminal prosecution is to be initiated necessarily to dissuade the parties / Banks / FIs to file such false cases in future. In support of its contention, Defendant no. 7 has relied upon the observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with false claims made by the tenant in the case of *Pradeep Khanna Vs. Khetarpal* quoting the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in *Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114* as well as the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249*.

- (vi) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 7 is that it was represented by the Borrower that the alleged mortgage of the property bearing no. 56/41, Block-C, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh is required to be created in substitution of some immovable properties which were part of the security to the credit facilities sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1.

It is stated in the WS that in the Sanction Letter dated 24.02.2010 of UBI / leader of Consortium, it has been mentioned that the guarantee other than that of Mr. H.S. Bharana are on account of mortgage and would be released. It is further stated that the alleged mortgage relied upon by the Applicant Bank is not valid and not binding on the answering Defendant in view of the fact that the said mortgage was not / never extended as security to the facilities granted under CDR finally. Thus, the claim made as against the answering Defendant no. 7 on account of guarantee is false and no Recovery Certificate as against the answering Defendant can be issued in the circumstances of the case.

(vii) Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that the Statement of Account annexed by the applicant bank along with the OA cannot be treated as correct in view of observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra. It is stated that the statement of account relied upon by the Applicant Bank includes the post CDR package period covered by the documents executed under the CDR package to which the defendant no. 7 is not a Party. Hence, no liability can be fastened on the answering Defendant no. 7 on account of the facilities sanctioned under CDR Package and on the basis of statements during that period without filing statements of earlier period.

(viii) Next objection of Defendant no. 7 is that no cause of action ever arose as against the Defendant no. 7 to make a claim of more than Rs. 1091.94 crores. Moreover, there is no averment supported by any document as to how the mortgage was created by the Defendant no. 7 in respect of its immovable property bearing no 56/41, Block-C, Sector-42, Noida (Noida Property).

(ix) Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that the filing of OA / claim against the Defendant no. 7 is barred by law in view of the novation of the contract between the Applicant Bank and the Defendant no. 1 / Borrower by entering into a fresh contract executing the Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Amended Master Restructuring Agreement and the Defendant no. 7 did not execute any Guarantee Agreement or Mortgage document in respect of the properties belonging to them as security to the facilities granted to the Borrower under CDR Package.

(x) Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that the claim made as against the answering Defendant is beyond limitation as the last document alleged to have been executed is of March 2013 (deliberately omitted to be filed) and subsequent to that entire credit facilities were restructured. But no documents were executed extending the securities or guarantee allegedly to have been created / executed by Defendant no. 7. Since no documents have ever been executed by the answering Defendant no. 7 for the restructured facilities permitted to the Defendant no. 1 under CDR Package and thus the claim made as against the Defendant no. 7 is barred by limitation and same is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost. Further, the Applicant Bank relied upon the Guarantee Agreement dated 15.06.2011 and in such a case, the limitation period expires by 15.06.2014 and invocation relied upon is of 2019 will be of no avail as the same is much beyond limitation.

- (x) Next plea of answering Defendant no. 7 is that it did not secure the credit facilities of Rs. 730.0 Crore by the "Corporate Guarantee" of Defendant no. 7 as the sanction letter at page 107 makes is clear that the *"Corporate Guarantee of Lead Financial Services Limited to the extent of property mortgage i.e. Rs. 11.0 Crore"*. From this it is clear that the Guarantee proposed was only by way of property mentioned therein and not corporate liability.

- (xi) Further, answering Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that it did not secure the credit facilities of Rs. 525.0 Crore by the "Corporate Guarantee" of Defendant no. 7 as no such document has been enclosed to this OA to substantiate the said averment. It is also stated that in the concerned Para, the Applicant Bank has also stated that the cash credit facility was collaterally secured amongst others, by mortgage of Noida Property belonging to the answering Defendant on pari passu basis with other consortium members but the Applicant Bank has not filed the said documents or at least the copies of the same in support of the said averment.

Thus, the Applicant Bank is resorting to suppression of material documents.

In the light of above, Defendant no. 7 has prayed to pass an order in favour of Defendant no. 7 and as against the Applicant viz. an order awarding a cost of Rs. 10.0 Lakh in favour of answering Defendant towards defending the litigations and further cost of Rs. 10.0 Lakh for disturbing the peaceful business of the Defendant no. 7. It is also stated by Defendant no. 7 that the Applicant Bank is not entitled to any relief as prayed for as against the Defendant no. 7 and thus the same is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs.

In support of its WS, defendant no. 7 has also filed following documents:-

- (a) Copy of Certificate of Registration issued by RBI (Annexure D7/1);

- (b) Copy of Board Resolution dated 07.02.2024 of the Defendant no. 7 (Annexure D7/2);

- (c) Copy of certified copy of the Board Resolution dated 26.05.2012 (part of exhibited documents in TA No. 365/2022 before DRT-3) in support of guarantee dated 23.03.2013 executed in favour of UBI Consortium not filed deliberately by Applicant Bank (Annexure D7/3);

- (d) Copy of the certified copy of the Guarantee Agreement dated 23.03.2013 (part of exhibited documents in TA-365/2022 before DRT-3) executed by Defendant no. 7 in favour of UBI Consortium not filed deliberately by Applicant Bank (Annexure D7/4);

- (e) Copy of the Sanction Letter dated 24.02.2010 of UBI, leader of consortium sanctioning substitution of property/ies as security (Annexure D7/5).

3.6 It is matter of record that the Defendant no. 17/Canara Bank as well as Defendant no. 24 / Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) have been impleaded in this OA as Proforma Defendants against which no relief is claimed by the Applicant Bank.

In this TA, the Defendant no. 17 / Canara Bank has filed its WS through Sh. Sandeep Gupta, Chief Manager. In the WS, Defendant no. 17 has given details of loans sanctioned by it and the loan / security documents executed by the Defendants as well.

It is further stated in the WS that the Defendant no. 2 M/s Lead Financial Services Ltd. (in the OA filed by the Canara Bank) is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Defendant no. 17 to the extent of Guaranteed Amount i.e. Rs. 11.39 Crore and Defendants no. 3 to 6 in the OA filed by the Canara Bank are liable to the Defendant no. 17 the liability outstanding for Term Loan to the extent of Rs. 280,36,76,426.00. It is stated in the WS that as on date, a sum of Rs. 943,22,78,368.40 is pending against all the Loan Accounts. Hence, the above said amount is recoverable from the Defendants no. 1 to 6 impleaded in the OA filed by the Canara Bank / Defendant no. 17 with interest and costs.

It is stated in the WS that since the Borrower Company and also the Guarantor / Corporate Guarantor (in OA filed by the Canara Bank) failed to liquidate the dues of Defendant no. 17 / Canara Bank, therefore, the Defendant no. 17 has also filed a recovery suit being OA (vide diary no. 721) dated 09.08.2019 for recovery of Rs. 943,22,78,368.40.

Now request is made that while issuing recovery certificate in the present OA, this Hon'ble Tribunal may pass an order for realization of outstanding dues of answering Defendant no. 17 together with outstanding dues of Applicant Bank / IOB as prayed in the OA.

3.7 It is matter of record that the Defendant no. 19/Bank of Maharashtra (BOM) has been impleaded in this OA as Proforma Defendant against which no relief is claimed by the applicant bank.

However, Defendant no. 19 / BOM has filed its WS through Sh. Vaibhav Yadav, Chief Manager who is authorized by defendant no. 19 bank in terms of Board Resoluton dated 22.03.2022 to sign the present Reply and verify the documents and depose on behalf of Defendant no. 19 Bank (Annexure D-19/1). In the WS, defendant no. 19 has given details of loans sanctioned by it and the loan / security documents executed by defendants as well.

It is also stated in the Reply that the answering Defendant has also preferred OA No. 26/2019 (BOM Vs. Mr. Hem Singh Bharana and Ors.) thereby seeking recovery of its dues to the tune of Rs. 726,02,35,334/- along with interest and costs against the same borrower which is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

It is stated in the WS that the answering defendant has been arrayed as Proforma party in this OA as the answering Defendant has a pari passu charge along with the applicant bank and admittedly, no relief has been sought against the answering Defendant no. 19, hence, no reply is required to the same. However, defendant no. 19 reserves its right to file a detailed reply in case of any further development in the present case that causes any prejudice to the rights and contention of the answering defendant.

In support of its WS, Defendant no. 19 has also relied upon various documents certified copy of the Circular / Authority Letter dated 22.03.2022, Sanction Letter, loan documents, Statement of Account etc. i.e. Annexure D-19/1 to D-19/71.

3.8 Further more, Defendant no. 24 / Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) has also filed its WS through Sh. Rajesh Gulati, Chief Manager. In the WS, Defendant no. 24 has also given details of loans sanctioned by it and the loan / security documents executed by the Defendants as well.

It is also stated that the Defendant no. 24 has also preferred the OA on 08.02.2020 before Ld. DRT, Delhi for recovery of its dues amounting to Rs. 178,99,43,499.48 as on 31.12.2019.

Now request is made that while issuing recovery certificate in the present OA, this Hon'ble Tribunal may pass an order for realization of outstanding dues of answering Defendant no. 24 / Canara Bank together with outstanding dues of Applicant Bank / IOB as prayed in the OA.

3.9 Further more, Defendant no. 29 / LIC of India has also filed its WS through Ms. Swati M. Phanse, Assistant Secretary/ In the WS, Defendant no. 29 has given details of loans sanctioned by it and the loan / security documents executed by the Defendants as well.

It is also stated that the Defendant no. 29 has also preferred an OA before DRT-I, at Mumbai and also made the Applicant (IOB) as Performa Defendant. It is further stated that the said OA has been filed against the Defendants no. 1 & 2 for the recovery of sum of Rs. 85,78,08,289/- as on 31.12.2017 with interest etc. from 01.01.2018 till the date of payment and/or realization.

Now request is made that in the event of the present OA being considered favorably and a decree issued in favour of the Applicant, the dues of the Defendant no. 29 may also be considered.

Along with its WS, Defendant no. 29 has also filed copy of power of attorney executed by Defendant no. 29 in favour of Ms. Swati M. Phanse.

4. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Kishore, Assistant General Manager of the Applicant bank. Subsequently, Mr. Sanjay Kishore was substituted by Mr. Devashish Mukherjee vide order dated 18.11.2023, who stood transferred and, therefore, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Neeraj, Chief Manager, was substituted at the relevant time who has exhibited the documents relied by the Applicant Bank.

4.1 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Neeraj, officer of applicant bank has placed reliance upon the documents filed by the Applicant Bank which includes:-

- (i) Power of Attorney dated 02.07.2007 duly executed by the Applicant Bank in favour of the deponent; (Ex. AW-1/1);

- (ii) Sanction Letter dated 05.12.2007 issued by Applicant Bank / IOB (Ex. AW-1/2);

- (iii) Board Resolutions dated 13.12.2007 of Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/3);

- (iv) Two Letters both dated 13.12.2007 exchanged between the Applicant Bank and lead Bank i.e. Union Bank of India / Defendant no. 11 wherein each other authorized to mark pari-passu and to make mention of the pri-passu charges in favour of each other before the Registrar of Companies (Ex. AW-1/4-colly);

- (v) Guarantees for Cash Credit (4 in number) dated 14.12.2007 and 19.12.2017 executed by Sh. Hem Singh Bharana/Defendant no. 2; Sh. Narain Vir Singh; Smt. Rekha Bharana, Sh. Dheeraj Singh Bharana; Sh. Brij Singh Bharana; Sh. Chiranji; Smt. Jagmali Devi; Sh. Arvind Kumar; Sh. Surinder Kumar; Sh. Ghanshyam and Sh. Om Prakash (Ex. AW-1/5-colly);

- (vi) General Counter Guarantee dated 14.12.2007 furnished by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/6);

- (vii) Letter of Hypothecation (for seeking machineries / vehicles / goods / book debts) dated 14.12.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/7);

- (viii) Hypothecation Book Debts dated 14.12.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/8);

- (ix) Letter of Hypothecation (in case of open advances only) dated 14.12.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/9);

- (x) Three Demand Promissory Notes, all dated 14.12.2007, for an amount of Rs. 75.0 Crore, Rs. 25.0 Crore and Rs. 100.0 Crore furnished by Defendant no. 1 to Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/10-colly);

- (xi) Sanction Letter dated 02.06.2011 issued by Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/11);

- (xii) Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 furnished by the Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/12);

- (xiii) Request Letter dated 14.06.2011 of Defendant no. 1 requesting the Applicant Bank to disburse Rs. 100.00 Crore on individual documents basis. It was also requested that the Cash Credit Limit be converted into the WCDL (Ex. AW-1/13);

- (xiv) Letter dated 10.06.2011 sent by the Applicant Bank and Lead Bank i.e. Union Bank of India / Defendant no. 11 whereby other consortium lenders were authorized to mark pari-passu and to make mention of the pari-passu charges in favour of each other before the Registrar of Companies (Ex. AW-1/14);

- (xv) Guarantees for Cash Credit dated 14.06.2011 executed by Sh. Hem Singh Bharana/Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-1/15);

- (xvi) General Counter Guarantee dated 14.06.2011 furnished by Defendant no. 1 Company (Ex. AW-1/16);

- (xvii) Guarantee for Cash Credit dated 14.06.2011 executed by M/s Lead Financial Services / Defendant no. 7 as well as Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 of Defendant no. 7 (Ex. AW-1/17-colly);

- (xviii) Two Letters of Hypothecation (for securing machineries / vehicles / goods / book debts) both dated 14.06.2011 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/18-colly);

- (xix) Hypothecation Book Debts dated 14.06.2011 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/19);

- (xx) Letter of Hypothecation (in case of open advances only) dated 14.06.2011 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/20);

- (xxi) Three Demand Promissory Notes, all dated 14.06.2011, for an amount of Rs. 90.0 Crore; Rs. 210.0 Crore and Rs. 280.0 Crore furnished by Defendant no. 1 to Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/21-colly);

- (xxii) Letter dated 14.06.2011 of Defendant no. 1 acknowledging that the Demand Promissory Note(s) given to the Applicant Bank as a security were signed by it (Ex. AW-1/22);

- (xxiii) Consent-cum-Authorization Letters, both dated 14.06.2011, executed by Defendants no. 1 & 2 respectively (Ex. AW-1/23-colly);

- (xxiv) Letter of Undertaking 14.06.2011 furnished by Defendant no. 1 company by which it undertook that it would not create any further charge over its property and assets including uncalled capital (Ex. AW-1/24);

- (xxv) Two Letters dated 15.06.2011 and 25.10.2011 furnished by Defendant no. 1 wherein request was made to carve out Rs. 100.0 crore as demand loan out of Cash Credit of Rs. 280.0 Crore along with Board Resolution dated 25.10.2011 passed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/25-colly);

(xxvi) Sanction Letter dated 15.11.2012 issued by the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/26);

(xxvii) Board Resolution dated 08.01.2013 furnished by the Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/27);

(xxviii) Guarantees for Cash Credit dated 17.01.2013 executed by Sh. Hem Singh Bharana / Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-1/28);

(xxix) Request Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 1 requesting the Applicant Bank to disburse Rs. 150.00 Crore on individual documents basis (Ex. AW-1/29);

(xxx) Guarantees for Cash Credit etc. (4 in numbers) all dated 17.01.2013 executed by Defendants no. 3 to 6 along with the Board resolution dated 07.06.2011 (Ex. AW-1/30-colly);

(xxxi) Demand Promissory Note dated 17.01.2013 for an amount of Rs. 150.0 Crore furnished by Defendant no. 1 to Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/31);

(xxxii) Respective Consent-cum-Authorization Letters (6 in number), all dated 17.01.2013, executed by Defendants no. 1 to 6 (Ex. AW-1/32-colly);

(xxxiii) Letter of Undertaking 17.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 1 company by which it undertook that it would not create any further charge over its property and assets including uncalled capital (Ex. AW-1/33);

(xxxiv) Letter dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 1 company by which it undertook that the proceeds of the Corporate Term Loan shall not be used for investment in real estate and capital market etc. (Ex. AW-1/34);

(xxxv) Another Letter of Undertaking for repayment of instalments in respect of Corporate Term Loan dated 17.01.2013 furnished by Defendants no. 1 to 6 (Ex. AW-1/35);

(xxxvi) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 3 i.e. M/s Alvita Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 3 (Ex. AW-1/36-colly);

(xxxvii) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 4 i.e. M/s Dev Rishabh Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 4 (Ex. AW-1/37-colly); (xxxviii) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 5 i.e. M/s Jiffy Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 5 (Ex. AW-1/38-colly);

(xxxix) Board Resolution dated 14.01.2013 furnished by Defendant no. 6 i.e. M/s Demas Developers Pvt. Ltd. as well as Affidavit dated 15.01.2013 and Letter dated 16.01.2013 of Defendant no. 6 (Ex. AW-1/39-colly);

(xl) Letter of Approval dated 29.03.2014 issued by the CDR Empowered Group (CDR EG") approving a restructuring package to Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/40);

(xli) Master Restructuring Agreement dated 29.03.2014 (MRA) entered into between the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank and other CDR lenders (Ex. AW-1/41);

(xlii) Personal Guarantee dated 29.03.2014 executed by Sh. H.S. Bharana / Defendant no. 2 in favour of SBICAP Trustee Services Ltd. as personal guarantor for the benefit of all the banks participating in the CDR mechanism including the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/42);

(xliii) Sanction Letter dated 24.04.2014 of Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/43);

(xliv) Security Trustee Agreement dated 19.05.2014 entered amongst the Applicant Bank, Defendant no. 1, the CDR Lenders and SBICAP Trustee Services Ltd. (Security Trustee) (Ex. AW-1/44);

(xlv) Irrevocable power of attorney dated 15.05.2014 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Limited (Security Trustee) for and on behalf of the Lender Banks (Ex. AW-1/45);

(xlvi) Amendment Agreement to the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 19.05.2014 duly signed and agreed by the parties (Ex. AW-1/46);

(xlvii) Trust and Retention Account Agreement dated 19.05.2014 executed amongst Applicant Bank, Defendant no. 1, the CDR Lenders and SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. (Trustee of the trust and retention account) (Ex. AW-1/47);

(xlviii) Three Corporate Guarantees, all dated 31.03.2015, executed by M/s Paulo Realtech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Yarikh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Zedek Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Ex. AW-1/48-colly);

- (xlix) Affidavit executed by Defendant no. 2 in support of the Personal Guarantee, inter-alia stating the assets and liabilities of Defendant no. 2 on 31.03.2015 (Ex. AW-1/49-colly);

- (l) Revival Letters dated 01.10.2015 and 22.12.2016 executed by Defendant no. 1 acknowledging the debt due and payable to the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/50);

- (li) Another Revival Letter dated 21.01.2017, executed by Defendant no. 1 acknowledging the execution of various joint documents confirming that all the financing and security document in favour of all consortium members are subsisting, valid, effective and fully enforceable against them (Ex. AW-1/51);

- (lii) Revival Letters dated 07.05.2018 executed by Defendant no. 1 acknowledging the debt due and payable to the Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/52);

- (liii) Office copy of Recall Notice dated 21.12.2019 and 06.03.2020 issued by Applicant Bank to the Defendants no. 2 to 10 along with postal and courier receipts (Ex. AW-1/53-colly);

- (liv) Letter / Reply dated 28.12.2019 to the Recall Notice dated 21.12.2019 issued by the Defendant no. 2, on the letter head of Defendant no. 1 admitting its liability towards Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-1/54);

- (lv) Statement of Accounts with respect to various accounts from 01.01.2014 to 19.03.2020 along with the Certificate under Banker's Book Evidence Act (Ex. AW-1/55-colly);

- (lvi) Copy of Audit Report and Balance Sheet for the period ending 31.03.2017 of Defendant no. 1

whereby Defendant no. 1 admitted and acknowledged its liability for an amount of Rs. 220.80 Crore (Ex. AW-1/56-colly);

- (lvii) Valuation Reports of the mortgaged properties dated 05.01.2017 (Ex. AW-1/57).

5. So far as, Defendant no. 7 is concerned, it has filed its Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. P.C. Bindal (D7-W1) who has relied upon the following documents:-

- (i) Board Resolution dated 07.02.2024 executed by Defendant no. 7 Company in favor of the deponent authorizing him to sign and execute and documents and depose Affidavit in present proceedings (Ex. D7W-1/1);

- (ii) Copy of certificate of registration issued by RBI registering the Defendant no. 7 as NBFC (Ex. D7W-1/2);

- (iii) Certified copy of the Board Resolution dated 26.05.2022 (part of exhibited documents in TA No. 365/2022 before DRT-3) in support of guarantee dated 23.03.2013 executed in favour of UBI Consortium (Ex. D7W-1/3);

- (iv) Certified copy of the Guarantee Agreement dated 23.03.2013 (part of exhibited documents in TA No. 365/2022 before DRT-3) executed by Defendant no. 7 in favour of the UBI Consortium (Ex. D7W-1/4);

- (v) Sanction Letter dated 24.02.2010 of UBI, leader of consortium sanctioning substitution of property/ies as security (Ex. D7W-1/5).

6. So far as, evidence of Defendant no. 17 / Canara Bank is concerned, it has filed affidavit of Sh. Ramakant Gupta, Chief Manager who has relied upon power of attorney executed by Defendant no. 17 in its favour.

7. Similarly, Defendant no. 24 has also filed affidavit of Sh. Yash Pal Gulati, Chief Manager who has relied upon power of attorney executed by Defendant no. 24 in its favour.

8. So far as, Defendants no. 19 / BOM & 29 / LIC of India are concerned, though they filed their respective WS(s) but they did not chose to file any Evidence.

It is pertinent to note here that Defendants no. 19 & 29 are the Performa Defendants against whom no relief has been claimed by the Applicant Bank in this OA.

9. It is important to note here that during the pendency of this OA, the Applicant Bank filed an IA bearing IA No. 1079/2022 for substitution of names of Defendant No. 12,16,20,21,22 and 24 in view of the amalgamation of various banks. IA/1079/2022 was allowed by the Tribunal and the Amended memo of parties was taken on record vide order dated 10.6.2022.

Subsequently, again an IA No. 215/2024 was filed by the Applicant Bank in view of the amalgamation of various banks which was allowed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 02.04.2024 and the Amended memo of parties was taken on record.

8. Further more, during the pendency of this OA, it was informed by the Ld. counsels for the parties (in WS / Reply of D-1 also) that CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua borrower company / Defendant no. 1 company before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and Resolution Plan has also been approved.

It was also informed by the applicant bank that personal insolvency proceedings have also been initiated qua defendant no. 2 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

It is pertinent to note here that relevant orders(s) of Ld. NCLT have also been placed on record.

9. It is also matter of record that one IA No. 1819/2022 was filed by Defendant no. 2 for seeking stay of the proceedings as the Defendant nos. 1 & 2 are before Ld. NCLT and moratorium is going on. The said IA was disposed off by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2024 holding that the proceedings against the Defendant no. 1 and 2 shall not be initiated until the moratorium is going on.

10. It is also important to note here that during the pendency of this OA, Defendant no. 1 filed one application being IA no. 738/2025 for seeking removal of Defendant no. 1 from the array of parties from the instant proceedings. The said IA was allowed vide order dated 17.09.2025 of this Tribunal and the name of Defendant no. 1 was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties in the present TA.

11. Though, Defendants no. 3 to 6 and 8 to 10 are already ex parte since 29.09.2022, however, Defendants no. 3 to 6 as well as Defendants no. 8 to 10 appeared before this Tribunal but they did not file any WS.

Subsequently, Ld. counsel appearing for Defendants no. 8 to 10 withdrew her vakalatnama, as mentioned in Order dated 17.09.2025 of this Tribunal. Hence, Defendants no. 8 to 10 remained ex parte.

12. In the present matter, the Applicant Bank, Defendants no. 3 to 6 and Defendant no. 7 have filed their respective written submissions as well.

13. Heard Ld. counsels for the applicant bank and perused the entire record.

13.1 It is matter of record that CIRP proceedings were initiated qua Defendant no. 1 / borrower company before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and Applicant Bank has not sought any relief qua Defendant no. 1 in this TA. However, subsequently, the name of Defendant no. 1 has already been deleted vide Order dated 17.09.2025 passed in IA No. 738/2025 of this Tribunal.

Further more, it is also matter of record that personal insolvency proceedings have also been initiated qua Defendant no. 2 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and the moratorium is under operation, hence, no final can also be passed qua Defendant no. 2.

However, it is directed that Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant in case 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 personal insolvency / CIRP proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

13.2 Now I would like to deal with the objections raised by defendant no. 7 herein in following paras:-

- (i) Defendant no. 7 has raised an objection that it is necessary to direct the Applicant Bank to implead the Resolution Professional appointed by NCLT for the borrower company i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Private Limited (Defendant no. 1 herein) in the present proceedings before going ahead with further proceedings in the present OA. It is stated that the facts related to sanctioning of credit facilities and the circumstances under which the alleged guarantee and alleged mortgage came to be created in favour of the consortium of banks will be available only with the Borrower Company which record is essential for adjudication of liability against the defendants and specifically against the answering Defendant no. 7. Moreover, the records relating to the present case are in possession of IRP being in charge of the affairs of the borrower company which contains material facts which affects the adjudication of the liability of the alleged guarantee / mortgage relied upon by the Applicant Bank as against the Defendant no. 7 in these proceedings.

It is matter of record that Resolution Professional of Defendant no. 1 was already impleaded in the OA, however, name of Defendant no. 1 was deleted vide Order dated 17.09.2025 passed in IA No. 738/2025 of this Tribunal.

So far as, the issue raised by Defendant no. 7 to the effect that the records relating to the present case are in possession of IRP being in charge of the affairs of the borrower company which contains material facts which affects the adjudication of the liability of the alleged guarantee / mortgage relied upon by the Applicant Bank as against the Defendant no. 7 in these proceedings, this Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant Bank has duly proved its documents and the Defendant no. 7 has not filed any document contrary to the documents relied by the Applicant Bank.

In the light of above, this objection of Defendant no. 7 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

(ii) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 7 is that the documents allegedly executed by and on behalf of the answering Defendant no. 7 are enforceable as against the answering Defendant no. 7 only to the extent permitted by Board Resolution and not beyond that, as the same would be ultra vires the powers vested in such executants.

In the present matter, Applicant Bank has placed on record only two documents executed by Defendant no. 7 i.e. Guarantee for Cash Credit dated 14.06.2011 executed by Defendant no. 7 herein as well as Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 of Defendant no. 7 (Ex. AW-1/17-colly). I have gone through the same and found that as per Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011, Defendant no. 7 has resolved that *consent of the company and is hereby*


*accorded to extend Mortgage of its properties including precincts thereof, situated at C-56/41, Sector-62, Noida-201301 in favour of Indian Overseas Bank to secure the Cash Credit and other Facilities extended by the said Bank to the Company (the same being already Mortgaged in favour of Union Bank of India to secure the working capital facilities (Fund Based & Non-Fund Based) sanctioned to Era Infra Engineering Limited by the consortium bankers lead by Union Bank of India.*

In the light of above, it is clear that the Defendant no. 7 has clearly passed Resolution to extend mortgage over its NOIDA property (which was already mortgaged in favour of Union Bank of India / leader of consortium in order secure the facilities granted to defendant no. 1 / Borrower Company) in favour of Applicant Bank.

So far as, Guarantee Deed executed by Defendant no. 7 is concerned, Defendant no. 7 has neither denied its signature / seal, rather same have been admitted by Defendant no. 7.

In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the objection raised by Defendant no. 7, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed and same stands dismissed.

- (iii) Defendant no. 7 has also taken a plea that answering Defendant no. 7 is neither an associate company nor a group company nor a subsidiary company of M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. the Borrower in the case and there has never been any express or implied representation on behalf of Defendant no. 7 that it is part or group or associate or subsidiary of M/s Era Infra Engineering. Moreover, answering Defendant was never director of Era Enfra Engineering Ltd.

This Tribunal is of the view that once the Defendant no. 7 has not denied execution of Guarantee for Cash Credit as well Board Resolution (Ex. AW-1/17-colly), now by taking such pleas, it cannot be absolved from its liability being corporate guarantor to Defendant no. 1 / principal borrower. Hence, this objection of Defendant no. 7 stands rejected accordingly.

(iv) Next objection of defendant no. 7 is that the Applicant Bank in these proceedings has sought a Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs. 1091,94,59,730.27 against Defendants no. 2 to 10 which includes Defendant no. 7 and for recovery of the said amount from the sale of assets belonging to Defendant no. 7 amongst others and specifically by sale of Land situated at Plot No. 56/41, Block-C, Sector-62, Noida – 201301, U.P. belonging to answering Defendant claiming a right on the said property as security. However, the same is false, wrong and contrary to the record of the case and wrong as per documents relied upon by the Applicant Bank itself. It is specifically asserted that the documents relied upon by the Applicant Bank to show alleged guarantee and mortgage allegedly created by the answering Defendant are no more valid as the answering Defendant as answering Defendant was never a party to the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 29.03.2014 and also to the amendment agreement to Master Restructuring Agreement dated 19.05.2014 by which the novation / incorporation of sections or provisions to various terms and conditions was permitted by the applicant bank under the CDR Package. It is further stated that no guarantee agreement was ever executed by the Defendant no. 7 under novated contracts as there is no stipulation for extending corporate guarantee by the answering defendant no. 7 in the letter of Restructure of Debt under CDR Renewal of credit limits / Sanction of Priority Loan dated 29.03.2014 issued by the CDR Empowered Group. In view of the admitted position that the answering Defendant is not part of the novation under CDR by which all the earlier sanctioned terms and conditions entered into between the parties before executing Master Restructuring Agreement stood amended and the rights under the earlier documents got eroded.

After careful perusal of record of this OA, it is revealed that the Defendant no. 7 is seeking to disown its liability on the pretext of non-participation in the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) Process and in the absence of post-CDR documentation. However, it is matter of record that Defendant no. 7 has executed Guarantee for Cash Credit dated 14.06.2011 as well as Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 (Ex. AW-1/17-colly). The said Board Resolution reveals that the Defendant no. 7 agreed to extend mortgage of immovable property situated at NOIDA (which was already mortgaged with Union Bank of India), securing the credit facilities extended to Defendant no. 1 / principal borrower. It is also matter of record that the said Guarantee Deed, by its explicit terms, is a continuing guarantee, binding the guarantor in the capacity of the principal debtor and waiving protection under Section 133 to 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972. Further more, the judicial pronouncements, including *H.B. Basavaraj Vs. Canara Bank* and *Rajiv Shetty Vs. Bank of Baroda*, have upheld the validity of such waivers and affirmed that sureties may contractually waive statutory protections. Moreover, there is no evidence on behalf of Defendant no. 7 to show that the original guarantee(s) were extinguished or superseded. On the contrary, the Applicant Bank invoked the Guarantee of defendant no. 7 by issuing Recall Notice dated 21.12.2019 (Ex. AW-1/53-colly).

Further more, Applicant bank has also filed Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 of Defendant no. 7 with regard to extending the mortgage over the NOIDA property mortgaged by Defendant no. 7 in favour of Union Bank of India (leader of consortium) which shows creation of mortgage by Defendant no. 7 itself.


In the light of above, the objection raised by Defendant no. 7 are hereby rejected.

- (v) Next plea of Defendant no. 7 is that the OA is liable to be dismissed in entirety in view of the false case set up / made out as against the Defendant no. 7 and apart from the same, a criminal prosecution is to be initiated necessarily to dissuade the parties / Banks / FIs to file such false cases in future. In support of its contention, Defendant no. 7 has relied upon the observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with false claims made by the tenant in the case of *Pradeep Khanna Vs. Khetarpal* quoting the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in *Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114* as well as the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249*.

This Tribunal is of the view that every party is free to approach the concerned Forum / Court in case they are aggrieved by any fraudulent actions initiated by any Bank / FI or any other person. By taking such pleas, Defendant no. 7 cannot take benefit in the present case.

Moreover, Defendant no. 7 has failed to prove its contention as the applicant bank has filed documentary evidence in support of its OA and the proceedings before this Tribunal are summary in nature. Mere making allegations by Defendant no. 7 are not going to give any benefit to the answering Defendant. Once Defendant no. 7 has not denied execution of letter of guarantee, now at the time of paying the dues of the bank, Defendant no. 7 cannot be absolved from its liability.

With the aforesaid observations, this plea of Defendant no. 7 stands disposed off accordingly.

- (vi) Next objection raised by Defendant no. 7 is that it was represented by the Borrower that the alleged mortgage of the property bearing no. 56/41, Block-C, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh is required to be created in substitution of some immovable properties which were part of the security to the credit facilities sanctioned to the Defendant no. 1. It is stated in the WS that in the Sanction Letter dated 24.02.2010 of UBI / leader of Consortium, it has been mentioned that the guarantee other than that of Mr. H.S. Bharana are on account of mortgage and would be released. It is further stated that the alleged mortgage relied upon by the Applicant Bank is not valid and not binding on the answering Defendant in view of the fact that the said mortgage was not / never extended as security to the facilities granted under CDR finally. Thus, the claim made as against the answering Defendant no. 7 on account of guarantee is false and no Recovery Certificate as against the answering Defendant can be issued in the circumstances of the case.

In the present case, Defendant no. 7 has placed reliance upon Sanction Letter dated 24.02.2010 of UBI / leader of Consortium whereas this OA has been filed by the Applicant Bank in its personal capacity. Hence, this plea of Defendant no. 7 is not going to help in any way.

Though, the present objection has already been discussed in above paras as well, however, it is again reiterated by the Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 of Defendant no. 7 is self-explanatory which shows that Defendant no. 7 resolved to extend the mortgage over its NOIDA property with the Applicant Bank. It was also confirmed by Defendant no. 7 that the said property was already mortgaged with Union Bank of India to secure the facilities sanctioned to Defendant no. 1 by the consortium bankers lead by Union Bank of India. Hence, this objection, being devoid of merit, is hereby rejected.

- (vii) Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that the Statement of Account annexed by the applicant bank along with the OA cannot be treated as correct in view of observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra. It is stated that the statement of account relied upon by the Applicant Bank includes the post CDR package period covered by the documents executed under the CDR package to which the defendant no. 7 is not a Party. Hence, no liability can be fastened on the answering Defendant no. 7 on account of the facilities sanctioned under CDR Package and on the basis of statements during that period without filing statements of earlier period.

Record reveals that Applicant Bank has filed Statement of Accounts of Defendant no. 1 along with the Certificate under the Bankers' Book of Evidence Act, 1891 (Ex. AW-1/55-colly). On the other hand, though Defendant no. 7 was always at liberty to file its own statement of account but did not chose to do so.

I have also gone through the Statement of Account and do not find any infirmity in the same. Hence, this plea of Defendant no. 7 is hereby rejected.

- (viii) Next objection of Defendant no. 7 is that no cause of action ever arose as against the Defendant no. 7 to make a claim of more than Rs. 1091.94 crores. Moreover, there is no averment supported by any document as to how the mortgage was created by the Defendant no. 7 in respect of its immovable property bearing no 56/41, Block-C, Sector-42, Noida (Noida Property).

This objection stands rejected in the light of discussion already made in above para(s).

- (ix) Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that the filing of OA / claim against the Defendant no. 7 is barred by law in view of the novation of the contract between the Applicant Bank and the Defendant no. 1 / Borrower by entering into a fresh contract executing the Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Amended Master Restructuring Agreement and the Defendant no. 7 did not execute any Guarantee Agreement or Mortgage document in respect of the properties belonging to them as security to the facilities granted to the Borrower under CDR Package.

This objection stands rejected in the light of discussion already made in above para(s).

- (x) Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that the claim made as against the answering Defendant is beyond limitation as the last document alleged to have been executed is of March 2013 (deliberately omitted to be filed) and subsequent to that entire credit facilities were restructured. But no documents were executed extending the securities or guarantee allegedly to have been created / executed by Defendant no. 7. Since no documents have ever been executed by the answering Defendant no. 7 for the restructured facilities permitted to the Defendant no. 1 under CDR Package and thus the claim made as against the Defendant no. 7 is barred by limitation and same is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost. Further, the Applicant Bank relied upon the Guarantee Agreement dated 15.06.2011 and in such a case, the limitation period expires by 15.06.2014 and invocation relied upon is of 2019 will be of no avail as the same is much beyond limitation.

It is matter of record that the Defendant no. 7 is seeking to disown its liability on the pretext of non-participation in the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) Process and in the absence of post-CDR documentation. However, it is already discussed above, that Defendant no. 7 has executed Guarantee for Cash Credit dated 14.06.2011 as well as Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 (Ex. AW-1/17-colly). It is also matter of record that the said Guarantee Deed, by its explicit terms, is a continuing guarantee, binding the guarantor in the capacity of the principal debtor and waiving protection under Section 133 to 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972. Moreover, there is no evidence on behalf of Defendant no. 7 to show that the original guarantee(s) were extinguished or superseded. On the contrary, the Applicant Bank invoked the Guarantee of defendant no. 7 by issuing Recall Notice dated 21.12.2019 (Ex. AW-1/53-colly) and the Defendant no. 7's silence and inactive post-invocation reflect acquiescence.

Further more, Defendant no. 1 / principal borrower has also executed various Revival Letters dated 01.10.2015 and 22.12.2016 (Ex. AW-1/50); dated 21.01.2017 (Ex. AW-1/51); 07.05.2018 (Ex. AW-1/52), all in favour of Applicant Bank as well as Audit Report and Balance Sheet for the period ending 31.03.2017 of Defendant no. 1 admitting and acknowledging its liability for a sum of Rs. 220.80 Crore (Ex. AW-1/56-colly). All the said documents are binding on Defendant no. 7, being guarantor to Defendant no. 1.

It is matter of record that this OA was filed on 22.07.2020. To decide the issue of limitation, it is pertinent to note here that the Applicant Bank has 

also filed Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 of Defendant no. 7 with regard to extending the mortgage over NOIDA property. Even otherwise, the debt in the present OA was based on mortgage of immovable properties of the Defendants including Defendant no. 7. Hence, as per Section 62 of the Limitation Act, the parent OA can be filed within 12-years from the date when the debt became due i.e. the date of NPA i.e. 01.07.2015 (as mentioned in Recall Notice dated 21.12.2019 issued by the Applicant Bank to the Defendants no. 2 to 7 (Ex. AW-1/53-colly))

In the light of above, this Tribunal is of the view that this OA has been filed well within the period of limitation and this plea of Defendant no. 7 is hereby rejected.

- (x) Next plea of answering Defendant no. 7 is that it did not secure the credit facilities of Rs. 730.0 Crore by the "Corporate Guarantee" of Defendant no. 7 as the sanction letter at page 107 makes is clear that the *"Corporate Guarantee of Lead Financial Services Limited to the extent of property mortgage i.e. Rs. 11.0 Crore"*. From this it is clear that the Guarantee proposed was only by way of property mentioned therein and not corporate liability.

In this case, the main defence of Defendant no. 7 is that the liability granted to the Borrower was novated from time to time and finally at the time of granting of CDR package as the answering defendant was never a party to the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 29.03.2014 and also to the amendment agreement to Master Restructuring Agreement dated 19.05.2014. But it is the case of the Applicant Bank the guarantee of Defendant no. 7 is continuing one.

Moreover, it is matter of record that the Deed of Guarantee dated 15.06.2011 (Ex. AW-1/17-colly) executed by Defendant no. 7 contains following main clauses:- **Deed of Guarantee dated 15.06.2011**

1. 1. *I/we in consideration of your agreeing at my / our request to give M/s Era Infra Engineering Limited, Regd. Office 370-37712, Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi – 110 014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal') time for repayment of his/their dues to the bank upto this date and further for continuing to make loans or advances or otherwise giving credit to him / them whether by advancing him / them monies or by allowing him / them to overdraw his / their account or by granting to him / them an advance by way of cash credit or otherwise. I / we the undersigned M/s Lead Financial Services Limited, jointly and severally guarantee the sum of Rs. 11,00,00,000.00 (Rupees eleven crores only) and of all monies (which terms shall include the principal advances already received by the principal and all interest due or to become due in respect of the said advances from the original or first of the date or dates of the advances until repaid at the rate the original or first of the date or dates of the advances until repaid at the rate charged by you from the time of such advances with monthly / quarterly / half-yearly rests and your usual Banker's charges) which are now or shall at any time*

*hereinafter during the continuance of this guarantee be due from the principal to you either for loans or advances in respect of which the principal shall or may be soldierly or jointly with others liable to you and of all costs, charges and other expenses which you may incur in enforcing or obtaining payment or all such.*

1. 2. *And I / we expressly declare that this guarantee shall be **continuing guarantee to you for any amount from time to time not exceeding as aforesaid the sum of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- (Rupees eleven crore only) together with interest and charges thereon due on the said account** and whether or not from time to time there by nothing owing on the said account or the same be from time to time brought to credit.*

2. 9. *And, it is further agreed and declared that this guarantee shall be a continuing guarantee irrespective of any sum or sums which may be paid into the account of the principal at any time during the continuance of the guarantee and shall remain in force until cancelled by my / our written authority, the amount then due ot be subject to this guarantee and secured thereby.*

Moreover, there are some other documents executed by Defendant no. 7 herein viz. Board Resolution dated 07.06.2011 (already discussed above) which clearly establish that the Defendant no. 7 duly resolved to extend the mortgage over its NOIDA property (which was already mortgaged with Union Bank of India / leader of consortium for securing the loan facilities granted to Defendant no. 1).

In the light of above, it is abundantly clear that Defendant no. 7 stood as guarantor for the facilities availed by Principal Borrower and the said guarantee is continuing one. But it is also evidence from the Guarantee Deed executed by Defendant no. 7 was for the sum not exceeding Rs. 11.00 Crore. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the Defendant no. 7 stood as corporate guarantor and is liable to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank to the extent of Rs. 11.0 Crore (Rupees Eleven Crore only) which is the sum due and payable to the Applicant Bank under the Deed of Corporate Guarantee dated 15.06.2011 along with interest and costs of this OA. Hence, it is directed that **the liability of Defendant no. 7 herein shall be restricted to the extent of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore only)** along with interest and costs of this OA.

With the above said observations, this objection of Defendant no. 7 stands disposed off accordingly.

(xi) Further, answering Defendant no. 7 has also raised an objection that it did not secure the credit facilities of Rs. 525.0 Crore by the "Corporate Guarantee" of Defendant no. 7 as no such document has been enclosed to this OA to substantiate the said averment. It is also stated that in the concerned Para, the Applicant Bank has also stated that the cash credit facility was collaterally secured amongst others, by mortgage of Noida Property belonging to the answering Defendant on pari passu basis with other consortium members but the Applicant Bank has not filed the said documents or at least the copies of the same in support of the said averment.

Thus, the Applicant Bank is resorting to suppression of material documents.

So far as, plea of Defendant no. 7 to the effect that it did not secure the credit facilities of Rs. 525.0 Crore by the "Corporate Guarantee" of Defendant no. 7 is concerned, I find merit in the contention of Defendant no. 7 as no such document has been enclosed to this OA to substantiate the said averment.

So far as, objection of Defendant no. 7 to the effect that the cash credit facility collaterally secured amongst others, by mortgage of Noida Property belonging to the answering Defendant on pari passu basis with other consortium members is concerned, it is the case of the Defendant no. 7 that the Applicant Bank has not filed the said documents or at least the copies of the same in support of the said averment.

It is matter of record that various OAs have been filed by different banks qua Defendant no. 1 as well as its guarantors and one of OA being TA No. 274/2022 (Union Bank of India Vs. H.S. Bharana & Ors.) has already been disposed off vide Order dated 18.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal wherein all the consortium documents have been filed and duly proved.

Hence, by taking such pleas, Defendant no. 7 cannot get absolved from its liability as per Guarantee Deed dated 15.06.2011 executed by it in favour of Applicant Bank.

In the light of above, this objection of Defendant no. 7 stands disposed off accordingly.

- (xii) So far as, prayer of Defendant no. 7 to pass an order in favour of Defendant no. 7 and as against the Applicant viz. an order awarding a cost of Rs. 10.0 Lakh in favour of answering Defendant towards defending the litigations and further cost of Rs. 10.0 Lakh for disturbing the peaceful business of the Defendant no. 7.

Since, it is already proved that Defendant no. 7 had given guarantee to the extent of Rs. 11.00 Crore in favour of Applicant Bank, hence, this prayer of Defendant no. 7 is not acceptable and same stands declined.

11.4 So far as, rest of the Defendants i.e. Defendants no. 3 to 6 and 8 to 10 are concerned, they are already ex parte since 29.09.2022. Though, these Defendants appeared through counsel(s) but no WS was filed by these Defendants. Hence, the case of Applicant Bank remained uncontested / unrebuted by Defendants no. 3 to 6 and 8 to 10.

It is also matter of record that Defendants no. 3 to 6 have filed their common written submissions wherein they have raised almost similar objections as raised by Defendant no. 7. This Tribunal is of the view that in the absence of pleadings / WS, the written submissions filed by Defendants no. 3 to 6 is not going to give them any benefit in this case and by raising such objections, these Defendants cannot be absolved from their respective liabilities. Hence, it is clear that the case of Applicant Bank against Defendants no. 3 to 6 & 8 to 10 remained uncontested / unrebutted.

11.5 Further more, Defendants no. 11 to 31 are Performa Defendants against whom no relief is claimed by the applicant bank.

Though, in their respective WS(s), Performa Defendants no. 17 / Canara Bank; Defendant no. 24 / e-Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) and Defendant no. 29 / LIC of India have given details of their respective OAs filed against Defendants. These Defendants have prayed to pass an order for realization of outstanding dues of answering Defendants with outstanding dues of Applicant Bank / IOB as prayed in the OA.

Since, this OA has been filed by the Applicant Bank / IOB in its personal capacity against the Defendants no. 2 to 10 whereas the Performa Defendants no. 17, 24 & 29 have already chosen to file their separate OAs against separate set of Defendants. Further more, the documents relied by these Defendants are not part of present OA. In these circumstances, this prayer of the Performa Defendants is hereby rejected.

11.6 On the other hand, the witness of applicant bank 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 unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the applicant bank and applicant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicant bank is entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the Defendants no. 3 to 10 along with pendentelite and future interest @13% p.a. and cost of this OA.

**However, it is made clear that the liability of Defendant no. 7 herein shall be restricted to the extent of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore only) along with interest and costs of this OA.**

11.7 In this OA, Applicant Bank has prayed to issue recovery certificate against Defendants no. 2 to 10 wherein the Defendant 2 is personal guarantor whereas Defendants no. 3 to 10 are corporate guarantors.

11.8 So far as, Defendant no. 1 / principal borrower and Defendants no. 11 to 31 are concerned, no relief has been claimed by Applicant Bank qua these Defendants since defendant no. 1 / principal borrower was already before Ld. NCLT, Delhi. Even otherwise, name of Defendant no. 1 has already been deleted from the array of parties vide Order dated 17.09.2025 passed in IA No. 738/2025 by this Tribunal.

Further more, Defendants no. 11 to 31 are the Performa Defendants.

11.9 Moreover, during the pendency of this OA, it was informed by the Applicant Bank that personal insolvency proceedings have also been commenced qua Defendant 2 also before Ld. NCLT, New Delhi.

In the light of above, no order can be passed against Defendant no. 2, at this stage till the relevant order(s) of Ld. NCLT are withdrawn / quashed. However, Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 2 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the CIRP and/or personal insolvency proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, Delhi it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

11.10 Consequently, TA No. 398/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of Applicant Bank against Defendants no. 3 to 10 only (being corporate guarantors and/or mortgagors), who are liable to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank 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.

However, liability of Defendant no. 7 is restricted to the extent of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore only) along with interest and costs of this OA.

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 398/2022 stands allowed in favour of Applicant Bank and the Defendants no. 3 to 10 for a sum of Rs. 1091,94,59,730.27 (Rupees One Thousand Ninety One Crore Ninety Four Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty and Paise Twenty Seven only) along with pendentelite and future interest @13% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till realization of the entire dues of the Applicant Bank along with costs of this OA. Now Defendants no. 3 to 10 are directed to pay the aforesaid amount(s) to the Applicant Bank within 30-days, failing which, the aforesaid amount(s) shall be recovered from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc. belonging to Defendants no. 3 to 10.

**However, it is made clear that the liability of Defendant no. 7 shall be restricted to the extent of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore only) along with interest and costs of this OA.**

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendants no. 3 to 10 only.

- (ii) So far as, Defendant no. 2 is concerned, since personal insolvency proceedings have been commenced qua Defendant before Ld. NCLT, New Delhi, no order can be passed against Defendant no. 2, at this stage till the relevant order(s) of Ld. NCLT are withdrawn / quashed.

However, Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 2 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the CIRP and/or personal insolvency proceedings pending before A small green rectangular stamp or mark is located at the bottom right of the page, next to the page number 72. It appears to be a digital or physical stamp, possibly indicating a signature or a specific administrative action.

Ld. NCLT, Delhi it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

- (iii) It is also directed that the Applicant Bank shall adjust the amount(s), if any, received from the Defendants during the pendency of this case.

- (iv) It is also directed that the sale proceeds of the secured assets shall be distributed between the consortium members, as per inter-se agreements executed amongst them.

- (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 17.07.2026.

- (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.

19.05.2026

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated 19.05.2026

This image shows a blank, aged, cream-colored page, likely an endpaper or flyleaf from an old book. The paper has a slightly textured appearance with some minor discoloration and faint smudges, characteristic of old paper. There is no text or other markings on the page.