PUNJAB AND SIND BANK vs SUPERTECH LIMITED on 5 September 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the applicant Bank / Punjab & Sind Bank on 09.08.2024, through Shri Simarjit Singh Khokhar, Chief Manager, being Authorized Representative of Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants 4 & 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 240,42,37,275.00 (Rupees Two Hundred Forty Crore Forty Two Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five only) due as on 31.07.2024 from the Defendants No. 4 and 6 along with further interest rate @16.70% p.a. (including penal interest @2%) with monthly rests against said Term Loan and other charges from 01.07.2024 till payment / actual realization in full along with all costs and charges and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. NDN/1130/2024 was originally filed before Ld. DRT-I, 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-I, Delhi to this Tribunal in August 2024 and was numbered at TA-11/2024.

1.3 It is also pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, one application being IA No. 321/2025 was filed on behalf of Applicant Bank praying therein to allow the Applicant Bank to modify the present OA thereby making its claim against the Defendants no. 5 & 6 instead of Defendants no. 4 & 5 and may proceed with the case.

The main ground taken in the said IA was that inadvertently, the Applicant Bank, instead of making its claim before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the Defendants no. 5 & 6 has filed the present OA against the Defendants no. 4 & 6. Thus, this IA was filed for amendment of the OA.

It is matter of record that IA No. 321/2025 has already been allowed vide Order dated 16.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal and the Applicant Bank has also filed amended OA as well.

Now **this OA (amended)** has been filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants 5 & 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 240,42,37,275.00 (Rupees Two Hundred Forty Crore Forty Two Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five only) due as on 31.07.2024 from the Defendants No. 5 and 6 along with further interest rate @16.70% p.a. (including penal interest @2%) with monthly rests against said Term Loan and other charges from 01.07.2024 till payment / actual realization in full along with all costs and charges and other relief(s).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank / Punjab & Sind Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 40, 1980. It is further stated that Sh. Simarjit Singh Khokhar, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank is also the Principal Officer of the Applicant Bank in terms of the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1 CPC and is, therefore, fully conversant with the facts of the case. Sh. Simarjit Singh Khokhar also holds Power of Attorney dated 22.12.2014 in his favour by which he is duly authorized and empowered by the Applicant Bank to sign, verify and file the OA and other pleadings. and to file the present OA for recovery and other pleadings, documents as may be just in the interest of the Applicant Bank. He is also authorized by the Applicant Bank to institute the present OA for recovery, sign and verify the same and to do all other co-related acts as he may deems proper and necessary for the prosecution of the same. Thus, the present OA is being accordingly signed and verified by the above said Officer of the Applicant Bank.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 i.e. M/s Supertech Ltd. is a public limited Company engaged in the business of real estate development, marketing & ancillary business. Defendants no. 2 & 3 are the directors well as personal guarantors. Similarly, Defendants no. 3 to 6 are the group companies of the Defendant no. 1 who have also offered their corporate guarantees to secure the credit facilities obtained by Defendant no. 1, whereas the Defendant no. 6 created mortgage in respect of the property underneath the Project.

2.2 It is relevant to point out here that personal insolvency section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code, 2016) read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rule 2019 (Rules 2019) has been initiated against the Defendants no. 2 & 3 before the NCLT, New Delhi by IDBI Bank Limited. Similarly, the Corporate Insolvency Proceedings are also pending against the Defendants no. 1 & 4.

It would be pertinent to point out that vide Order dated 25.04.2022, Adjudicating Authority had ordered for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the Defendant no. 1. Thereafter, the said order was modified by Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide Order dated 27.07.2022, whereby the CIRP was directed to be continued only against Project Eco Village 2 and remaining CIRP order was vacate against other project which were allowed to be run as ongoing projects. However, Hon'ble NCLAT vide Order dated 27.07.2022, further clarified that other Projects of the Defendant no. 1 shall continue under the supervision of IRP appointed by Hon'ble NCLT. Subsequently, vide Order dated 08.07.2024, NCLAT clarified that the moratorium against Defendant no. 1 shall continue and therefore, recovery proceedings cannot be proceeded with against Defendant no. 1.

Hence, at present, no orders can be passed against the Defendants no. 1, 2, 3 & 4. It is also stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank has filed its claim against the said Defendants and in case any amount is received against such claim, the proportionate claim in the present proceedings shall be reduced. However, at present, this OA is maintainable and entitled to be proceeded against the Defendant no. 5 & 6 before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

2.3 It is stated in the OA that it is relevant to point out that the erstwhile Corporation Bank (being the leader of consortium for the present Project with Applicant) had also sanctioned the Term Loan Facilities to the Borrower along with Applicant under consortium arrangement. The erstwhile Corporation Bank has been merged, amalgamated with Defendant no. 7 herein (Union Bank of India) vide Gazette Notification No. 154(E) dated 04.03.2020. Hence, all the assets, liabilities and loans of the erstwhile Corporation Bank is now the assets and liabilities of the Defendant no. 7 and since the securities were created in favour of the Applicant Bank as well as Defendant no. 7, therefore, Defendant no. 7 is also arrayed as party being the proforma Defendant.

2.4 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 proposed to set up/develop Group Housing Residential Project **"Romano"** on land admeasuring 66875 square meters allotted to its group housing company i.e. Defendant no. 6 herein with saleable area of 3547235 square meters spread in 2349 Units situated at Group Housing Plot No. GH-01, Sector – 118, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP (hereinafter referred to as the **"Project"**).

The cost of the proposed Project was estimated at Rs. 815.03 crore proposed to be financed by Internal Accruals / Promoters Contribution of Rs. 250.0 Crore, Advance Booking of Rs. 315.03 Crore and Term Loan of Rs. 250.0 Crore.

2.6 Accordingly, the Defendant no. 1 approached the Applicant Bank and the Defendant no. 7 for part financing of the Project and the Applicant Bank vide its Sanction bearing Ref. No. PSB : LA : SG : 2013-14 dated 17.12.2013 read with sanction letter dated 23.06.2014 sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 100.0 Crore and the remaining was sanctioned by Defendant no. 7.

It is stated in the OA that the Term Loan was duly secured by various securities viz. mortgage of property situated at Gautam Budh Nagar, UP; hypothecation of all movable assets and current assets; and personal guarantees of the Defendants no. 2 & 3 as well as Corporate Guarantees of Defendants no. 4 to 6 etc. [details of the securities have been given in Para 5(5.7) (i) to (v) of the OA].

2.7 It is further stated in the OA that thereafter, the Applicant Bank revised its earlier term of sanction vide modification of sanction bearing Ref. No. PSB/CB/2014-15 dated 23.06.2014 with respect to revalidation of the existing MCLR and change of the name of the project which earlier as "Renesa" changed to "Romano" apart from modification of certain other conditions.

2.8 The Defendant no. 1 submitted Resolution dated 23.06.2014 for accepting the terms and conditions of the sanction letters of the lenders, execution of the documents etc.

2.9 In consideration of the Term Loan, sanctioned and allowed by the Applicant Bank & Defendant no. 7, the Defendant no. 1 Company through its authorized signatory executed the following loan and security documents in favour of the Applicant:-

- (i) Joint Facility Agreement dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant and Defendant no. 7 [details given in Para 5.10 (i) of the OA];

- (ii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 thereby hypothecating with the Lenders (Applicant and Defendant no. 7) the various assets [details given in Para 5.10 (ii) of the OA];

- (iii) Escrow Account Agreement dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 thereby appointing the Defendant no. 7 as Escrow Bank and the mechanism with respect to outflow and inflow as duly detailed therein including receivables to be received out of the Project;

- (iv) General Undertaking dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sanction letter;

- (v) The text relating to CIBIL dated 26.06.2014.

2.10 Apart from the above, the Defendants no. 2 & 3 executed Deed of Guarantee dated 26.06.2014 separately in favour of the Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 to secure the liability of the Defendant no. 1 Company in respect of the Term Loan of Rs. 150.0 Crore sanctioned and availed by the Defendant no. 1 company. The liability of the Defendants no. 2 & 3 are joint, several and co-existence with that of the Defendant no. 1.

2.11 Further, the Defendant no. 4 furnished Resolution dated 23.06.2014 for furnishing its corporate guarantee. In pursuant to the said Resolution, the Defendant no. 4 executed Deed of Guarantee dated 26.06.2014 separately in favour of Consortium of Lenders i.e. Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 to secure the liability of the Defendant no. 1 Company in respect of the Term Loan of Rs. 250.0 Crore sanctioned and availed by the Defendant no. 1 company. The liability of the Defendant no. 4 is joint, several and co-existence with that of the Defendant no. 1.

2.12 Moreover, the Defendant no. 5 also furnished Resolution dated 23.06.2014 for furnishing its corporate guarantee. In pursuant to the said Resolution, the Defendant no. 5 executed Deed of Guarantee dated 26.06.2014 separately in favour of Consortium of Lenders i.e. Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 to secure the liability of the Defendant no. 1 Company in respect of the Term Loan of Rs. 250.0 Crore sanctioned and availed by the Defendant no. 1 company. The liability of the Defendant no. 5 is joint, several and co-existence with that of the Defendant no. 1.

2.13 Further more, the Defendant no. 6 also furnished Resolution dated 23.06.2014 for furnishing its corporate guarantee. In pursuant to the said Resolution, the Defendant no. 6 executed Deed of Guarantee dated 26.06.2014

separately in favour of Consortium of Lenders i.e. Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 to secure the liability of the Defendant no. 1 Company in respect of the Term Loan of Rs. 250.0 Crore sanctioned and availed by the Defendant no. 1 company. The liability of the Defendant no. 6 is joint, several and co-existence with that of the Defendant no. 1.

2.14 It is stated in the OA that the Defendants no. 2 to 6 also executed and submitted a joint consent relating to CIBIL dated 26.06.2014 in favour of Defendant no. 7 being the leader of the consortium.

2.15 Apart from the above, the Defendant no. 6, being the owner in respect of the property underneath the Project created mortgage in respect of Plot of land of Group Housing Plan No. GH-01, having an area of 66875 sq. meters, Sector – 118, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP ("**said Property**") created mortgage in respect of the same and deposited the title deeds in respect of the same and executed the following documents:-

- (i) Joint Mortgage Deed dated 26.06.2014 in favour of the Lenders;

- (ii) Letter of mortgage confirming Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of Lead Bank;

- (iii) Power of Attorney dated 26.06.2014 for creation of mortgage / charge security thereby appointing the Defendant no. 7 as the Attorney;

- (iv) Affidavit dated 26.06.2014.

2.16 It is stated in the OA that apart from above, an Inter-se Agreement dated 26.06.2014 was entered into between the Lenders comprising of Applicant Bank and the Defendant no.

7 in order to record sharing of the Securities on pari passu charge basis and suitable provisions relating to better monitoring of the Project being set up by the Defendant no. 1. Not only this, the Applicant Bank also executed Letter of Authority, dated 26.06.2014 in favour of Defendant no. 7 (being the leader of the Consortium) thereby giving power to Defendant no. 7 to also act on its behalf.

2.17 It is further stated in the OA that the charge in respect of the said facilities as well as assets charged to the Lenders were duly filed before the Registrar of Companies on 26.06.2014 by Defendant no. 1. Apart from the same, the charge in respect of the mortgage was duly recorded with CERSAI which is evident from the certificate dated 25.07.2014. Further more, the Defendant no. 6 also file Charge in respect of the said Property before ROC on 29.07.2014.

2.18 It is stated in the OA that thereafter, the Defendant no. 1 duly availed the Rupee Term Loan from the Applicant Bank as well as Defendant no. 7 under the consortium arrangement. But after availment of the said Term Loan, the Defendant no. 1 defaulted in repayment of the said Term Loan in terms of the documents entered into between the parties.

2.19 Thereafter, the Defendant no. 1 confirmed its liability to be Rs. 100.0 Crore with interest accounted upto 12.06.2017 and executed Revival Letter dated 23.06.2017 in favour of the Applicant Bank thereby admitting and acknowledging its liability to pay the said outstanding amount along with interest.

2.20 As already mentioned hereinabove, the Defendant no. 6 Company, being the owner of the abovesaid mortgaged property created mortgage thereon as security for the Term Loan availed by the Defendant no. 1 Company from the Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7.

[details / particulars of the mortgage, title deeds deposited, property mortgaged and sum due have been given in Para 5(5.22)]

2.21 Since, the Defendants were not coming forward to make payment of the amount due against the said Term Loan Account despite repeated requests and reminders, the Rupee Term Loan Account of the Defendant no. 1 was declared as Non Performing Asset on 30.06.2018 in terms of the RBI Guidelines.

2.22 Thereafter, the Applicant Bank served the Defendants no. 1 to 6 with a Notice dated 19.07.2018 sent under Regd. AD/Speed Post AD under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 thereby calling upon the Defendants to pay the entire outstanding amount within 60-days of the said notice, failing which the Applicant shall be constrained to initiate the action under the SARFAESI Act. However, despite receipt of the said notice, the Defendants failed to pay the amount. It is also stated that inadvertently the said notice was also issued to Sh. Mohit Arora and M/s Supertech Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (the corrigendum to the same was issued later, as described hereafter).

2.23 Thereafter, the Applicant Bank also issued Recall Notice dated 20.09.2018 on the Defendant no. 1 and also invoking the personal / corporate guarantees furnished by the Defendants no. 2 to 6 and called upon the Defendants no. 1 to 6 to pay the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 104,15,42,892/- along with interest due thereupon. However, despite the said notice, the Defendants no. 1 to 6 failed to pay the outstanding amount.

2.24 It is stated in the OA that due to COVID-19 and due to complete lockdown, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 23.03.2020, 08.03.2021, 24.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stood excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all Judicial or Quasi Judicial proceedings in terms of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2.25 Thereafter, the Defendant no. 1 confirmed the balance in the loan account maintained by it with the Applicant Bank to be Rs. 152,15,04,038/- with interest accounted upto 31.08.2021 and executed the Balance & Security Confirmation Letter dated 01.09.2021 thereby acknowledging its liabilities to pay the amount.

2.26 As detailed hereinabove, due to inadvertent error, the notice dated 19.07.2018 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was sent to Sh. Mohit Arora and M/s Supertech Realtech Pvt. Ltd. along with the Defendant no. 1 to 6 herein, though they have not furnished any personal / corporate guarantee, therefore, a Corrigendum Notice dated 30.07.2024 to the said notice was sent by the Applicant Bank thereby withdrawing the said notice against Sh. Mohit Arora and M/s Supertech Realtech Pvt. Ltd.

2.27 Thus, the Defendants no. 1 to 6 have defaulted in payment of the outstanding dues in the loan accounts and the same have been increasing day by day. The Defendants were time and again reminded by the Applicant to regularize the Term Loan Account of Defendant no. 1, but the Defendants remained irregular and did not care to deposit the amount to adjust / regularize the said Term Loan Account and pay the amount in the account despite various assurances given by the Defendants. Since, the Defendants no. 1 to 6 have failed to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank, hence, the Bank was compelled to file this OA for recovery of its dues.

2.28 It is important to note here that since the Personal Insolvency is pending against Defendants no. 2 & 3 and the Corporate Insolvency is already pending against the Defendant no. 1 and 4 before Ld. NCLT, therefore, as of now no recovery proceedings can proceed against them. However, the Applicant Bank seeks leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to initiate appropriate proceedings against the said Defendants when they come out of Moratorium or otherwise, as may be permissible under IBC. In case any amount is received against the said proceedings by the Applicant Bank, same shall be adjusted by the Applicant Bank against the outstanding dues recoverable from Defendants no. 5 & 6. Therefore, the present OA is being filed against the Defendants no. 5 & 6.

It is also stated that no relief is claimed against the Defendant no. 7 as the Defendant no. 7 was pari passu charge holders with respect to the securities offered in the loan account of the Defendant no. 1. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Defendant no. 7 had already filed an OA for recovery

against the Defendants no. 1 to 6 herein and other parties bearing TA No. 63/2022 pending before DRT-II, New Delhi. In the said TA, the Applicant Bank is arrayed as Defendant no. 9. An IA No. 611/2023 was filed before the DRT-II, New Delhi for transposing Applicant (arrayed as Defendant no. 9 in the said OA) to be one of the Applicants. However, on account of objections, the same has since been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh OA for recovery by Applicant Bank herein, therefore, present OA is being filed.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendants and the Defendants no. 5 & 6 appeared through their counsel and filed their common WS through Sh. Nirdoshi Rathore, Authorized Signatory of Defendants no. 5 & 6 who have been authorized by way of Board Resolution(s) dated 24.12.2024 and 21.11.2024 passed by respective Board of Directors of Defendants no. 5 & 6.

3.1 So far as, Defendants no. 1 to 4 are concerned, despite service, they neither appeared nor filed any WS. However, it is pertinent to note here that no relief is claimed by the Applicant Bank qua Defendants no. 1 to 4 since they are before Ld. NCLT, New Delhi.

3.2 So far as, defendant no. 7 / UBI is concerned, despite sufficient service none appeared on behalf of defendant no. 7 nor filed any WS. However, it is pertinent to note here that Defendant no. 7 has been impleaded as Proforma Defendant in this OA and no relief is claimed by the Applicant Bank qua Defendant no. 7.

3.3 In their common WS, Defendants no. 5 & 6 have denied the contents of the OA and have raised following main objections:-

- (i) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have raised an objection that the amount claimed by way of present OA is unsubstantiated. They have stated in the WS that in the OA, there is clear admission that the loan was sanctioned on 17.12.2013 and the loan documents were executed in the year 2014. However, the statement of accounts filed along with the OA starts from 30.06.2017. Thus, there is no statement of account from the date of sanction of the credit facilities i.e. 17.12.2013 till 29.06.2017. which is purportedly the period between which the alleged sanctioned amount of Rs. 100.0 Crore has been disbursed. It is also stated that penal interest and normal interest has been charged by the Applicant Bank and moreover penal interest is also being compounded which is contrary as per law. The Applicant Bank has neither disclosed the rate of interest charged nor any separate statement of account for penal interest has been filed. It is stated that since no proper statement of accounts has been placed on record by the Applicant, therefore, no final order can be passed based on an unsubstantiated claim.

- (ii) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also raised an objection that the NPA classification is contrary to the guidelines issued by RBI.

- (iii) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also taken a plea that the rate of interest charged by the Applicant Bank are exorbitant harsh and same was never agreed between the parties.

- (iv) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 5 & 6 is that the proposal submitted by NBCC before Hon'ble NCLAT has been approved and Applicant Bank can recover money from the same. It is stated in the WS that UBI had filed an application under Section 7 of IBC 2016 for initiation of CIRP qua M/s Supertech Limited which was admitted vide Order dated 25.03.2022 passed by Ld. NCLT in Company (IB)-204/ND/2021. Thereafter, one of the suspended directors of the respondent no. 2 company filed an appeal before Hon'ble NCLAT challenging the order dated 25.03.2022. In the said Appeal bearing CA(AT) Ins. 406/2022, the Order dated 25.03.2022 was passed modifying the order to the extend of upholding the CIRP qua ECO Village-II and by passing further directions. Further, NBCC submitted a proposal dated 11.11.2024 before NCLAT, registered as IA No. 6557/2024, to complete the construction of all 17 Projects without any unnecessary details. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Tribunal reserved the matter for pronouncement of the Judgment. (copy of IA no. 6557/2024 filed by NBCC is enclosed with the WS). The said proposal submitted by NBCC was allowed by Hon'ble NCLAT vide Order dated 12.12.2024. It is relevant to point out that an issue was raised by the land authorities, Lenders, Banks and FIs, that NBCC in its proposal has submitted that payment of dues to them shall be made only after completion of the Project from surplus amount. But the proposal submitted by NBCC to make payment from surplus fund after completion of the Project was outrightly rejected by Hon'ble Tribunal rather it was directed that repayment shall begin in the manner as decided by the Apex Court Committee. The proposal of the IRP was accepted to constitute Apex Court Committee and for all the Projects given to the NBCC in relation to the completion of the Project and utilization of funds by NBCC and to protect the safeguards and interest of the stakeholders of the Project and a Project wise Court Committee for each Project to monitoring the NBCC and taking decisions on various matters related to the Project. The Hon'ble Tribunal approved the Constitution of Apex Court Committee and project wise Committees. In view of the above stated facts, there is nothing left to adjudicate against the answering Defendants. (copy of Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble NCLAT is enclosed with the WS).

(v) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 5 & 6 is that the instant OA deserves to be dismissed as there is lack of territorial jurisdiction with this Hon'ble Tribunal to entertain and decide the instant OA.

- (vi) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also raised an objection that this OA has not been filed within the period of limitation.

- (vii) Next objection of Defendants no. 5 & 6 is that there exist no cause of action against the answering Defendants.

- (viii) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have taken a plea that since NCLAT, New Delhi has taken care for repayment of the amount due to Banks, Land Authorities and FIs and same can be recovered from the same, therefore, the claim as alleged by the Applicant Bank against the answering Defendant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

- (ix) The answering Defendants no. 5 & 6 have denied the execution of unconditional and unqualified guarantees.

- (x) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also taken a plea that in terms of the Judgment of Hon'ble NCLAT, the entire debt is fully secured from the receivables of Project Romano as admittedly there are only two lenders i.e. Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 and as per terms and details placed on record before Hon'ble NCLAT, there is surplus in hand in Project Romano. Therefore, the entire debt shall be covered, once NBCC

receives receivables from the allottees and distribute the same in terms of the Judgment. In view of the same, nothing can be recovered from the answering Defendants as it would amount to wrongful gain and receiving same amount twice which is not permissible in law.

In the light of above, request is made to dismiss the present OA filed by the Applicant Bank with exemplary costs.

It is also pertinent to note here that Defendants no. 5 & 6 have placed relied upon the following documents which were filed along with their WS :-

- (i) Copy of IA No. 6557/2024 filed by NBCC (Annexure DW1/1);

- (ii) Copy of the Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi (Annexure DW 1/2).

4. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Sh. Simarjit Singh Khokhar, Chief Manager and the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank.

4.1 Sh. Sh. Simarjit Singh Khokhar, Officer of the Applicant Bank has placed reliance upon the following documents :-

- (i) Power of Attorney dated 22.12.2014 executed by the Applicant Bank in favour of the deponent (Ex. AW-1/1);

- (ii) Office copy(s) of Sanction Letter(s) dated 17.12.2013 read with sanction letter dated 23.06.2014 (Ex. AW-1/2-colly);

- (iii) Resolution dated 23.06.2014 passed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/3);

- (iv) Joint Facility Agreement dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant and Defendant no. 7 (Ex. AW-1/4);

- (v) Deed of Hypothecation dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/5);

- (vi) Escrow Account Agreement dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 thereby appointing the Defendant no. 7 as Escrow Bank (Ex. AW-1/6);

- (vii) General Undertaking dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/7);

- (viii) The text relating to CIBIL dated 26.06.2014 (Ex. AW-1/8);

- (ix) Deed of Guarantee dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 3 separately in favour of the Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 (Ex. AW-1/9 & 1/10);

- (x) Board Resolution dated 23.06.2014 passed by Defendant no. 4 for furnishing its corporate guarantee along with Deed of Guarantee dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 4 in favour of Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 (Ex. AW-1/11-colly);

- (xi) Board Resolution dated 23.06.2014 passed by Defendant no. 5 for furnishing its corporate guarantee along with Deed of Guarantee dated 

26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 5 in favour of Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 (Ex. AW-1/12-colly);

(xii) Board Resolution dated 23.06.2014 passed by Defendant no. 6 for furnishing its corporate guarantee along with Deed of Guarantee dated 26.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 6 in favour of Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 (Ex. AW-1/13-colly);

(xiii) Joint consent relating to CIBIL dated 26.06.2014 executed and submitted by Defendants no. 2 to 6 in favour of Defendant no. 7 being the leader of the consortium (Ex. AW-1/14);

(xi) Documents relating to creation of mortgage by Defendant no. 6 viz. Joint Mortgage Deed dated 26.06.2014 in favour of the Lenders, Letter of mortgage confirming Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of Lead Bank, Power of Attorney dated 26.06.2014 for creation of mortgage / charge security thereby appointing the Defendant no. 7 as the Attorney and Affidavit dated 26.06.2014 (Ex. AW-1/15-colly);

(xii) Inter-se Agreement dated 26.06.2014 entered into between the Lenders comprising of Applicant Bank and the Defendant no. 7 in order to record sharing of the Securities on pari passu charge basis etc. along with Letter of Authority, dated 26.06.2014 executed by Applicant Bank in favour of Defendant no. 7 (being the leader of the Consortium) (Ex. AW-1/16-colly);

- (xiii) Documents with regard to charge duly filed before the Registrar of Companies on 26.06.2014 by Defendant no. 1 along with charge in respect of the mortgage duly recorded with CERSAI vide certificate dated 25.07.2014 and charge filed in r/o mortgaged property before ROC on 29.07.2014 (Ex. AW-1/17-colly);

- (xiv) Revival Letter dated 23.06.2017 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Bank thereby admitting and acknowledging its liability (Ex. AW-1/18);

- (xv) True copies of Notice dated 19.07.2018 sent under Regd. AD/Speed Post AD under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 by the Applicant Bank to Defendants no. 1 to 6 (Ex. AW-1/19-colly);

- (xvi) True copy of Recall Notice dated 20.09.2018 sent by Applicant Bank to the Defendants no. 1 to 6 (Ex. AW-1/20-colly);

- (xvii) Balance & Security Confirmation Letter dated 01.09.2021 executed by Defendant no. 1 thereby acknowledging its liabilities to pay the amount (Ex. AW-1/21);

- (xviii) Corrigendum Notice dated 30.07.2024 to the notice dated 19.07.2018 sent by the Applicant Bank to Sh. Mohit Arora and M/s Supertech Realtech Pvt. Ltd. a/w Defendants no. 1 to 6 thereby withdrawing the said notice against Sh. Mohit Arora and M/s Supertech Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (Ex. AW-1/22-colly);

- (xix) Certified copy of Statement of Account duly certified under Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 and Memorandum of Interest showing the amount due as well as Certificate under Bankers Books Evidence Act (Ex. AW-1/23 & AW-1/24).

5. So far as, evidence of Defendants no. 5 & 6 is concerned, they filed their evidence by way of affidavit(s) of Sh. Nirdosh Rathore, being authorized signatory of Defendants no. 5 & 6. These defendants have relied upon following documents:-

- (i) copy of Board Resolution dated 24.12.2024 executed by defendant no. 5 in favour of Sh. Nirdosh Rathore (Ex. DW-5/1);

- (ii) copy of IA bearing no. 6557/2024 filed by NBCC before NCLAT, New Delhi (Ex. DW-5/2 & DW-6/2);

- (iii) Copy of the Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi (Ex. DW-5/3 & DW-6/3);

- (iv) copy of Board Resolution dated 21.11.2024 executed by defendant no. 6 in favour of Sh. Nirdosh Rathore (Ex. DW-6/1).

6. Applicant Bank as well as Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also filed their respective written submissions.

7. Heard Ld. counsels for the Applicant Bank and Defendants no. 5 & 6 and also perused the entire record.

7.1 Since, Defendants no. 1 to 4 are already under CIRP proceedings / personal insolvency proceedings before Ld. NCLT, New Delhi, hence, no relief has been claimed qua these Defendants by the Applicant Bank in this OA. In these circumstances, no final order can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendants no. 1 to 4 at this stage.

However, Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendants no. 1 to 4 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 proceedings / personal insolvency proceedings pending qua Defendants no. 1 to 4 before Ld. NCLT, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

7.2. Now I would like to deal with the defence / objections taken by Defendants no. 5 & 6 in their common WS in following paras:-

- (i) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have raised an objection that the amount claimed by way of present OA is unsubstantiated. They have stated in the WS that in the OA, there is clear admission that the loan was sanctioned on 17.12.2013 and the loan documents were executed in the year 2014. However, the statement of accounts filed along with the OA starts from 30.06.2017. Thus, there is no statement of account from the date of sanction of the credit facilities i.e. 17.12.2013 till 29.06.2017, which is purportedly the period between which the alleged sanctioned amount of Rs. 100.0 Crore has been disbursed. It is also stated that penal interest and normal interest has been charged by the Applicant Bank and moreover penal interest is also being compounded which is contrary as per law. The Applicant Bank has neither disclosed the rate of interest charged nor any separate statement of account for penal interest has been filed. It is stated that since no proper statement of accounts has been placed on record by the Applicant, therefore, no final order can be passed based on an unsubstantiated claim.

I have gone through the entire record. Record reveals that Joint Facility Agreement dated 26.06.2014 in favour of Applicant and Defendant no. 7, was executed by Defendant no. 1 agreeing to repay the said loan in seven quarterly instalments (first six instalments of Rs. 33.34 crore each and last instalment of Rs. 50.0 crore) after an initial moratorium of 13 quarters from the date of the first disbursement. It was also agreed that each instalment shall be in proportion to each Bank's respective Term Loan Share. [repayment schedule, interest payment, dates & rate of interest have been detailed in Schedule – III of the Joint Facility Agreement dated 26.06.2014]. Thus, there exists no statement of account till the moratorium of 13-quarters from the date of first disbursement and subsequent to moratorium period, the statement of account has been filed w.e.f. 30.06.2017 (open date) till 31.03.2024 and annexed with the OA which is duly proved as Ex. AW-1/23. Record further reveals that along with the statement of accounts, Applicant Bank has also filed Certificate under Section 2A of Banker's Book of Evidence Act 1891 (Ex. AW-1/24).

Even otherwise, Defendants no. 5 & 6 have not denied the availment of loan facilities and Applicant Bank has also filed Revival Letter dated 23.06.2017 (Ex. AW-1/18) as well as Balance & Security Confirmation Letter dated 01.09.2021 (Ex. AW-1/21), both executed by Defendant no. 1, and same have been duly proved by the Applicant Bank. It appears that after availing the loan facilities, now at the time of paying the dues of the bank, Defendants are raising such type of objections.

In the light of above discussion, this Tribunal is of the view that no illegality / infirmity is found in the Statement of Account(s) filed by the Applicant Bank. Accordingly, this plea of Defendants no. 5 & 6 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (ii) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also raised an objection that the NPA classification is contrary to the guidelines issued by RBI.

Record reveals that the Applicant Bank has stated in the OA that the classification of account as NPA was done on 30.06.2018 in accordance with the directives of RBI. Defendants no. 5 & 6 have not denied availment of loan facilities nor the default committed by the Borrower company. Now at the time of paying the dues of the Applicant Bank, they are taking such type of objection without any substantial proof. In these circumstances, I do not find merit in the contention of Defendants no. 5 & 6 with regard to declaration of account as NPA, accordingly, the plea of Defendants no. 5 & 6 is hereby rejected.

- (iii) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also taken a plea that the rate of interest charged by the Applicant Bank are exorbitant harsh and same was never agreed between the parties.

Record reveals that the Applicant Bank has already filed certified copy of the Statement of Account along with OA (already discussed in above paras). This Tribunal is of the view that Defendants have failed to point out a single entry specifically and have not even chosen to file their own statement of accounts.

In the light of above, this plea of Defendants no. 5 & 6 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

- (iv) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 5 & 6 is that the proposal submitted by NBCC before Hon'ble NCLAT has been approved and Applicant Bank can recover money from the same. It is stated in the WS that UBI had filed an application under Section 7 of IBC 2016 for initiation of CIRP qua M/s Supertech Limited which was admitted vide Order dated 25.03.2022 passed by Ld. NCLT in Company (IB)-204/ND/2021. Thereafter, one of the suspended directors of the respondent no. 2 company filed an appeal before Hon'ble NCLAT challenging the order dated 25.03.2022. In the said Appeal bearing CA(AT) Ins. 406/2022, the Order dated 25.03.2022 was passed modifying the order to the extent of upholding the CIRP qua ECO Village-II and by passing further directions. Further, NBCC submitted a proposal dated 11.11.2024 before NCLAT, registered as IA No. 6557/2024, to complete the construction of all 17 Projects without any unnecessary details. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Tribunal reserved the matter for pronouncement of the Judgment. (copy of IA no. 6557/2024 filed by NBCC is enclosed with the WS). The said proposal submitted by NBCC was allowed by Hon'ble NCLAT vide Order dated 12.12.2024. It is relevant to point out that an issue was raised by the land authorities, Lenders, Banks and FIs, that NBCC in its proposal has submitted that payment of dues to them shall be made only after completion of the Project from surplus amount. But the proposal submitted by NBCC to make payment from surplus fund after completion of the Project was outrightly rejected by Hon'ble Tribunal rather it was directed that repayment shall begin in the manner as decided by the Apex Court Committee. The proposal of the IRP was accepted to constitute Apex Court Committee and for all the Projects given to the NBCC in relation to the completion of the Project and utilization of funds by NBCC and to protect the safeguards and interest of the stakeholders of the Project and a Project wise Court Committee for each Project to monitoring the NBCC and taking decisions on various matters related to the Project. The Hon'ble Tribunal approved the Constitution of Apex Court Committee and project wise Committees. In view of the above stated facts, there is nothing left to adjudicate against the answering Defendants. (copy of Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble NCLAT is enclosed with the WS).

I have gone through entire record of this OA. It is matter of record that Defendants no. 1 to 4 are before I.d. NCLT, Delhi. It is matter of record that this OA has been filed for recovery of its dues from the Defendants and it has already been directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the proceedings pending before I.d. NCLT, Delhi, it shall give adjustment of the same to the Defendants in the recovery proceedings.

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for Defendants no. 5 & 6 argued that the aforesaid Order dated 12.12.2024 of Hon'ble NCLAT was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Judgment dated 05.02.2026 was passed (copy placed as Annexure-A along with written submissions) and Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Para 16 that *bringing NBCC on record was neither unfair nor contrary to the provisions of IBC.* Further in Para 17, it was directed that *NBCC shall*

*deploy its resources to ensure that the pending projects are completed within the prescribed timeline. In Para 19 it was also held that no Tribunal or Court including the High Court shall pass any interim or final direction stopping any project from being commenced by NBCC. Further in Para 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that completion of residential projects and allotment of units to home buyers will not cause any prejudice to any party including creditors and their claims will be determined by the Tribunals in due course, taking into account the prevailing circumstances.*

It is also stated that the Order of Hon'ble NCLAT held by Hon'ble Supreme Court covers total 16 projects of Supertech Ltd. as mentioned in Para 5 of the Judgment and said list includes Project ROMANO, which is the Project in question in the instant OA. Hence, this OA is not maintainable even against Defendants no. 5 & 6.

On perusal of Order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is revealed that no stay order has been granted qua passing an order in the OA of secured creditor rather *Tribunal or Court including the High Court have been restrained from passing any interim or final direction stopping any project from being commenced by NBCC.* It is also matter of record that this Tribunal is not going to pass any order for stopping any project being commenced by NBCC. In the said Order, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the primary concern is to 

protect the interest of hard earned homebuyers' money and to secure the modicum of shelter comprising the residential unit for which they have been waiting for decades. Further more, the claims of other creditors such as secured creditors, operational creditors or land owners, including Noida, Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway were considered as secondary. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT was equitable, fair and transparently judicial. It also held that order for bringing the NBCC on record for completion of the pending projects, *per se*, is neither unfair nor contrary to any provision of IBC, and hence, it rightly deserves protection under the umbrella of Article 142 of the Constitution. From the aforesaid observations, it can be said that the entire dispute in the Appeal revolves around the issue to bring NBCC India Ltd., into the picture for completion of remain projects, which categorically includes the Project "ROMANO" at serial no. (iii) of the said list of Projects.

On the other hand, Defendants no. 5 & 6 in the present OA have been impleaded in the capacity as Corporate Guarantors whose liability exists irrespective of liability of the Defendant no. 1 / Borrower and as such there is no impact of proceedings before Hon'ble Supreme Court on the liability of Defendants no. 5 & 6.

It is evident from the Judgment dated 05.02.2026 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Appeal, no moratorium or any dispute or case has been imposed. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover its outstanding dues from Defendants no. 5 & 6. With these observations, this objection of Defendants no. 5 & 6 stands rejected.

- (v) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 5 & 6 is that the instant OA deserves to be dismissed as there is lack of territorial jurisdiction with this Hon'ble Tribunal to entertain and decide the instant OA.

It is matter of record that the Applicant Bank is situated at Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. Further more Defendant no. 1 is also having its registered office at Nehru Place, New Delhi and / or Gautam Budh Nagar, UP within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal and the other Defendants also reside and work for gain in Delhi and Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.

Section 19(1) of RDB Act, which governs the territorial jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), states that *an application may be made to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (a) The bank or financial institution maintains the account in which the debt is outstanding. (b) The defendant resides, carries on*

*business, or personally works for gain. (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.*

Moreover, the amount to be recovered in the present OA exceeds Rs. 100.0 Crore. Hence, in the light of Gazette Notification No. 4718 (E) dated 04.10.2022 issued by Government of India, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, this Tribunal is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose off the OA.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the considered view this Tribunal has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application (OA). Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 5 & 6 stands rejected.

- (vi) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also raised an objection that this OA has not been filed within the period of limitation.

It is matter of record that the Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 17.12.2013 read with modification therefore dated 23.06.2014 sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 100 Crore out of total debt requirement of Rs. 250.0 Crore to the Defendant no. 1. The Defendants no. 1 to 6 executed various security documents w.e.f. 23.06.2014 till 26.06.2014 as well as Revival Letter dated 23.06.2017 and Balance & Security Confirmation Letter dated 01.09.2021 executed by Defendant no. 1. Further more, Supreme Court vide its Order dated 23.03.2020, 06.03.2021, 24.04.2021, 23.09.2021 & 10.01.2022 excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purpose of limitation. It is matter of record that this OA was filed on 09.08.2024 which is well within the period of limitation. Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 5 & 6 stands rejected accordingly.

Next objection of Defendants no. 5 & 6 is that there exist no cause of action against the answering Defendants.

- (vii) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have taken a plea that since NCLAT, New Delhi has taken care for repayment of the amount due to Banks, Land Authorities and FIs and same can be recovered from the same, therefore, the claim as alleged by the Applicant Bank against the answering Defendant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

As already discussed above, this OA has been filed by the Applicant Bank under Section 19 of DRT Act for recovery of its dues from the Defendants whereas matter pending before Hon'ble NCLAT is with regard to corporate / insolvency proceedings. Though, banks / FIs can file their respective claims before Ld. NCLT / NCLAT with regard to amount received from CIRP/personal insolvency proceedings but there is no bar on filing an OA by the Banks / FIs for recovery of their dues from the Guarantors as they are co-extensively liable to pay the dues along with Borrower. Hence, this plea of 

Defendants no. 5 & 6 is not tenable and same stands rejected.

- (viii) The answering Defendants no. 5 & 6 have denied the execution of unconditional and unqualified guarantees.

It is matter of record that Defendants no. 5 & 6 have not denied execution of documents including Guarantee Deeds executed by them along with their respective Board Resolutions and said security documents have already been proved by the Applicant Bank as Ex. AW-1/12-colly & AW-1/13-colly. Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 5 & 6 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (ix) Defendants no. 5 & 6 have also taken a plea that in terms of the Judgment of Hon'ble NCLAT, the entire debt is fully secured from the receivables of Project Romano as admittedly there are only two lenders i.e. Applicant Bank and Defendant no. 7 and as per terms and details placed on record before Hon'ble NCLAT, there is surplus in hand in Project Romano. Therefore, the entire debt shall be covered, once NBCC receives receivables from the allottees and distribute the same in terms of the Judgment. In view of the same, nothing can be recovered from the answering Defendants as it would amount to wrongful gain and receiving same amount twice which is not permissible in law.

Though this issue has already been discussed in above paras, however, it is once again reiterated that the Applicant Bank is duty bound to give adjustment of the money recovered from the NCLT in the recovery proceedings and in case entire dues of applicant bank are satisfied, the concerned RC proceedings may be closed before the Recovery Officer in due course of time. In fact, as on date no proof of surplus money or any other amount alleged to be received by the Applicant has also not been filed by the answering Defendants. In these circumstances, this objection of Defendants is hereby rejected at this stage.

7.3 So far as, Defendant no. 7 is concerned, defendant no. 7 neither appeared nor filed any WS till date. hence, the case of applicant bank qua defendant no. 7 remained uncontested / unsubstantiated. However, it is matter of record that Defendant no. 7 is a proforma party against which no relief is claimed by the Applicant Bank in this OA.

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


7.5 In the present OA, Defendants no. 1 to 4 are already under CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings before Ld. NCLT, New Delhi. Hence, Applicant Bank has not sought any relief qua Defendants no. 1 to 4. In these circumstances, no final order is required be passed by this Tribunal qua defendants no. 1 to 4 at this stage.

However, applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 1 to 4 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 / personal insolvency proceedings pending qua defendants no. 1 to 4 before Ld. NCLT, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

8. Consequently, TA No. 11/2024 is liable to be allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank and against defendants 5 & 6 (being corporate guarantors) 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.

**ORDER**

- (i) TA No. 11/2024 stands allowed in favour of the Applicant Bank against Defendants no. 5 & 6 for a sum of Rs. 240,42,37,275.00 (Rupees Two Hundred Forty Crore Forty Two Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five only) along with cost, 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 from the sale of secured assets /

mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc., if any, belonging to the Defendants no. 5 & 6 only.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendants no. 5 & 6 only.

- (ii) Since, Defendants no. 1 to 4 are already under CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings before Ld. NCLT, hence, no final order can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendants no. 1 to 4 at this stage.

However, Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 1 to 4 in case NCLT proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant receives any amount from the CIRP / personal insolvency proceedings pending qua Defendants no. 1 to 4 before Ld. NCLT, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

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

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

TA-11/2024

- (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 12.11.2026.

- (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.

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

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 05.09.2026

This image is a scan of a blank page. The background is a light beige or off-white color. There are several small, dark specks scattered across the page, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust. A faint, vertical line is visible near the center of the page, possibly due to the scanning process or the paper's texture. The overall appearance is that of a clean but slightly aged piece of paper.