J.C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited (Ambit Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited) vs SHIV VANI OIL GAS AND EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD AND ORS on 18 November 2025

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank i.e. Yes Bank Limited on 13.06.2019, through Mr. Deepansh Puri, Vice-President of Applicant Bank, being authorized representatives of Applicant Bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants no. 1 to 5 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 360,52,64,846.41 (Rupees Three Hundred Sixty Crore Fifty Two Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Six and Paise Forty One only) as on 31.03.2019 together with interest from 01.03.2019 and further future pendente lite interest till the realization of the dues in full and final payment of the amount claimed along with all costs and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 349/2020 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 October 2022 and was numbered at TA-37/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Bank is a company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and is represented by its authorized representative, Mr. Deepansh Puri, Vice-President of applicant bank who is a duly authorized by the Applicant Bank by way of Power of Attorney dated 12.02.2019 to institute and file necessary suits / proceedings and/or applications/claims, petitions/complaints before the Tribunal and courts against the Defendants and *inter-alia* to sign, verify and institute and prosecute any suit proceedings on behalf of the Applicant Bank.

2.1 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant No. 1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in the business of providing drilling services to exploration and production companies operating in the Oil and Gas Sector including onshore drilling, deep drilling, work over drilling, directional drilling, seismic studies, integrated well operations and CBM development activities. It is further stated that defendants no. 2 & 3 are the directors and promoters of the Defendant no. 1 Company and have guaranteed repayment of the Facilities. So far as, Defendants no. 4 & 5 are concerned, they are the corporate guarantors and have executed Deed of Guarantee guaranteeing the repayment of Facilities availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the Applicant Bank.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that in the year 2013, the Defendant No.1 through its Directors, Mr. Prem Singhee (Defendant no. 2) and Mr. Padam Singhee (Defendant no. 3) approached the Applicant Bank for the Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 25.0 Crore for the purpose of working capital requirements. The Applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit Facility (CC Facility) vide Facility Letter dated 23.03.2013 to the Defendant no. 1 along with Working Capital Demand Loan (Sublimit of CC Facility) of Rs. 25.0 Crore and Letter of Credit (Sublimit of CC Facility) for Rs. 20.0 Crore and Byers Credit (Sublimit of CC Facility) of Rs. 20.0 Crore (hereinafter collectively referred as "Working Capital Facility") to the Defendant no. 1.

It is also stated that the Board of Directors of the Defendant no. 1 passed a resolution on 23.03.2013 thereby resolving to raise the Working Capital Facility from the Applicant Bank for the purpose of working capital requirements.

It is further stated in the OA that to avail the Working Capital Facility from time to time, the Defendant no. 1 and the Applicant Bank entered into a Master Facility Agreement dated 25.03.2013 to enumerate the terms and conditions of the Working Capital Facility.

Pursuant to the aforesaid Working Capital Facility granted to the Defendant No. 1 Company, the following documents were executed:-

- (i) Demand Promissory Note dated 25.03.2013 along with Letter of Continuity of D.P. Note dated 25.03.2013 for Rs. 25.0 Crore executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (ii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 creating a first pari-passu charge on all present & future current assets of the Defendant no. 1 and Second pari-passu charge on entire fixed assets of the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the applicant bank;

- (iii) Negative Lien Undertaking dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 in respect of its corporate office (Land & Building) situated at Tower 1, 5^th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi;

- (iv) Common Letters of Continuing Guarantee dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 3;

- (v) Deed of Undertaking dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 as well as Declaration for Submission of PDC issued by Defendant no. 1.

2.3 It is further stated in the OA that in the year 2014, the Defendant no. 1 through Defendants no. 2 & 3 approached the Applicant Bank for Term Loan Facility for an amount of Rs. 225.0 Crore for the purpose to part finance capex funding / acquisition of rigs / long term working capital / payment of existing creditors / statutory dues. The Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term Loan Facility for an amount of Rs. 225.0 Crore vide facility Letter dated 13.08.2014 and Letter dated 16.08.2014 (hereinafter referred as "TL Facility").

It is further stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 and the Applicant Bank entered into a Loan Agreement dated 18.06.2014 agreeing to grant a term loan facility to the Defendant no. 1 to the tune of Rs. 50.0 Crore to part finance Capex funding / acquisition of rigs / long term working capital etc.

Further more, the following documents were also executed by the Defendants :-

- (i) Letter of continuity for Demand Promissory Note and Letter of Continuity dated 18.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1;

- (ii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 18.06.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 creating a charge as detailed in Clause 1 thereof;

- (iii) Letters of Continuing Guarantee dated 18.06.2014 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 3;

- (iv) Deed of Guarantee dated 18.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 5;

- (v) Declaration for Submission of PDC dated 18.06.2014 issued by Defendant no. 1.

2.4 Thereafter, the Facility Letter dated 16.06.2014 was amended by an addendum dated 27.12.2014 in pursuance

whereof, a supplementary loan agreement was executed between the Defendant No. 1 and the Applicant Bank on 29.12.2014. The said documents were accompanied by execution of a deed of hypothecation dated 29.12.2014, a Demand Promissory Note and Letter of Continuity of Demand Promissory Note dated 29.12.2014 by the Defendant no. 1.

In addition to the aforesaid, the Defendants no. 2 & 3 issued Letters of continuing Guarantee dated 29.12.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank to secure the facility provided by the Applicant Bank and they irrevocable and unconditionally guaranteed the due repayment of all the amounts without any demure and or contestation. Moreover, the Defendant no. 5 also executed a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank irrevocable and unconditionally guaranteeing the due payments to the Applicant Bank.

2.5 Thereafter, the Applicant Bank vide letter dated 02.03.2015 issued an addendum to the Facility Letter dated 13.06.2015 and another letter also dated 02.03.2015 sought to amend the Facility Letter dated 13.06.2014 and 02.03.2015.

The Defendant no. 1 in terms of the aforesaid said Facility Letter & Addendum Facility Letters, entered into a Facility Agreement dated 08.07.2015 with the Applicant Bank agreeing and accepting the terms of the TL Facility.

In addition to the aforesaid, the Defendants no. 2 to 5 executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 08.07.2015 in favour of the Applicant Bank to secure the facility provided by the Applicant Bank and they irrevocable and unconditionally guaranteed the due repayment of all the amounts without any demure and or contestation.

2.6 It is stated in the OA that as per the terms of Facility Letters for the Working Capital Facility & TL Facility, the Facilities were to be secured by :- **A. For Working Capital Facility**

- • First pari-passu charge on all present & future current assets of the Borrower

- • Second pari-passu charge on entire movable & immovable assets of the Borrower (excluding assets exclusively charged to other lenders)

- • Negative lien over borrower corporate office, land & building at Tower 1, 5^th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi

- • Unconditional and Irrevocable Personal Guarantee of Mr. Prem Singhee (Defendant no. 2) & Mr. Padam Singhee (Defendant no. 3) to remain valid during entire tenor of credit facilities.

**B. For TL Facility**

- • First pari-passu charge over fixed assets of the borrower

- • Second pari-passu charge on current assets of the borrower

- • Pledge on unencumbered shares of promoter / promoter group

- • Deed of Guarantee executed by M/s Dharti Oil Services Ltd. (Defendant no. 4)

- • Deed of Guarantee executed by M/s TRS Technology Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant no. 5)

- • Deed of Guarantee executed by Mr. Prem Singhee (Defendant no. 2)

- • Deed of Guarantee executed by Mr. Padam Singhee (Defendant no. 3)

- • Undertaking for creation of security interest 2.7 It is stated in the OA that in furtherance of the aforesaid Documents executed by Defendants no. 1 to 5 in favour of the Applicant Bank, the Defendant no. 1 fully availed the financial facilities time to time from the Applicant Bank.

It is further stated in the OA that as per the terms and conditions, the Defendant no. 1 was obliged to make the repayment towards the Facilities promptly on the due dates, without any delay. However, the Defendant no. 1 did not abide by the terms and conditions of the Master Facility Agreement and Facility Agreement (collectively referred herein as the "Loan Agreement") and neglected in making payment / repayment(s), despite repeated reminders by the Applicant Bank. The Applicant Bank from time to time through its officials and also vide various correspondences called upon the Defendant no. 1 to observe the financial discipline with respect to repayments of the Facilities. Despite various assurances, the Defendant no. 1 has failed to comply with the terms of the Loan Agreement. Further, there were continuing events of Default including *inter alia* persistent failure to arrange sufficient funds in the loan account to regularize the interest overdue, etc. and hence the loan account was classified as a "Non-Performing Asset" on 31.12.2015 in accordance with the directions / guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

2.8 It is also stated in the OA that the Borrower Company i.e. Defendant no. 1 made a reference in the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell (CDR Cell) vide its letter dated 27.06.2013, requesting admission for restructuring of its existing debt which *inter-alia* included the credit facilities given by the Applicant Bank to the Borrower Company. The CDR Cell admitted the debts amounting to Rs. 2013.62 Crore of the Borrower Company i.e. the Defendant no. 1 for restructuring which included the credit facilities provided by CDR member banks and non-CDR member banks. The CDR Cell formulated a package (CDR Package) which *inter-alia* constituted a methodology for treating of existing facilities, sanction of new facilities and securities to secure the re-casted facilities.

It is further stated that the Applicant Bank is also a part of CDR Package as a "Non-CDR Member Bank" and credit facilities sanctioned to the Borrower Company i.e. Defendant no. 1 by the Applicant Bank are covered under CDR package and are duly reflected in the minutes of the monitoring committee meeting dated 19.06.2014 and 12.01.2015.

It is stated in the OA that in the meanwhile, a Company Petition was filed by some FCCB Holders and Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 26.08.2013 restrained the Borrower Company i.e. Defendant no. 1 from creating any encumbrance on its assets. It is further stated that though the charge over assets of the Defendant no. 1 is agreed and acknowledged by the Defendant no. 1 and all other defendants, the charge could not be filed because of operation of the said order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is stated that the Applicant Bank has filed an Application in Hon'ble Delhi High Court seeking permission to file charge with Registrar of Companies by the Defendant no. 1 on assets of Defendant no. 1 which is pursuant to creation of hypothecation by the Defendant no. 1 and as the credit facilities of YBL (as Non CDR Lender) have been approved in the CDR Package by the CDR Cell vide Letter of Approval dated 28.02.2014. It is also to be noted that the CDR Empowered Group (CDR EG) in its meeting held on 28.01.2015, the minutes whereof was conveyed vide CDR Letter dated 24.02.2015, has duly recognized Rupee Term Loan of Rs. 250.0 Crore by Applicant Bank to the Defendant no. 1 company and also ceded *pari passu* security for the said facility subject to Applicant Bank ceding charge in favour of CDR lenders. It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank while reiterating necessary background of the proceedings in Hon'ble Delhi High Court crave for liberty to modify the OA as per findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

It is also stated in the OA that the Borrower Company, in pursuance to the Facility Agreement dated 08.07.2015 for the Term Loan Facility of Rs. 225.0 crore only, has also provided an Undertaking for Creation of Security in favour of the Applicant Bank, over the assets in terms of the credit 

facilities availed by it from the Applicant Bank. Amongst other undertakings, the Borrower Company unequivocally undertook to create security interest on the Secured Assets [details given in Para 5(5.30) of the OA].

2.9 It is stated in the OA that the total exposure of the Applicant Bank as on 31.03.2019 is as under:- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Nature of Facility</th> <th>Sanction of Amount (INR Cr.)</th> <th>Principal o/s (as on March 31, 2019) (INR Cr.)</th> <th>Areas in addition to principal o/s (as on March 31, 2019) (INR Cr.)</th> <th>Earliest arrears due from</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Rupee Term Loan</td> <td>225.00</td> <td>215.20</td> <td>103.04</td> <td>1^st Nov'15</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CC Loan</td> <td>25.00</td> <td>22.69</td> <td>19.61</td> <td>21^st Jan'16</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>250.00</b></td> <td><b>237.89</b></td> <td><b>122.65</b></td> <td></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

2.10 It is further stated in the OA that as neither the Defendants no. 1 to 5 complied in terms of the notices and reminders dated 27.04.2018 nor the Defendant no. 1 to 5 complied with terms & conditions of the Transaction Documents, the Applicant Bank became entitled to invoke the guarantees executed by the Defendants no. 2 to 5 in view of the continuous defaults by Defendant no. 1. As a result, the Applicant Bank called upon the Defendant No. 2 to 5 vide letters dated 27.04.2018 to remit the outstanding dues of Rs. 323,47,16,460.28 due as on 22.14.2018 till actual realization under the Facility within a period of 7-days from the date of receipt of the Guarantee Invocation dated 27.04.2018. However, the Defendant has till date not complied with the terms and conditions of the guarantee invocation dated 27.04.2018 for the repayment of the Facilities.

In these circumstances, the present OA is being filed under Section 19 of RDB Act 1993 for recovery of Rs. 360,52,64,846.41 from the Defendants due as on 31.03.2019 together with further interest and other charges thereon at the contractual rates upon the footing of compound interest until payment to the Applicant Bank.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants, and some of the defendants being defendants no. 2 to 5 and some of the Proforma Defendants appeared through their respective counsels but the WS was filed by Defendant no. 21 only.

3.1 It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this OA, it was informed by Applicant Bank that Defendant no. 5 is before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

3.2 So far as, Defendants no. 1 to 4 are concerned, they did not chose to file their WS and stopped entering before the Tribunal, hence, the case was directed to proceed ex parte qua Defendants no. 1 to 4 vide Order dated 24.07.2025 of this Tribunal.

3.3 So far as, Proforma defendants no. 6 to 24 are concerned, despite service, they did not chose to appear before this Tribunal nor filed any WS (except Defendant no. 21). It is pertinent to note that no relief has been claimed by the applicant bank qua defendants no. 6 to 24.

4. In its WS, defendant no. 21 has given details of loans sanctioned by them to the Defendants, security documents executed in this regard as well as details of its separate OA filed against the defendants. It is pertinent to note here that no relief has been claimed qua these defendants by Applicant Bank.

5. It is also important to note here that during the pendency of this OA, one application being IA No. 202/2023 was filed for seeking substitution of J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. in place of Applicant Bank i.e. Yes Bank Ltd. which was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2023 of this Tribunal.

6. To prove their case, the Applicant i.e. J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. leads is evidence by filling the affidavit of Mr. Amandeep Singh Bajaj, Director of Applicant.

6.1 Mr. Amandeep Singh Bajaj, Officer of Applicant has placed reliance upon various documents viz.

- (i) Assignment Agreement dated 16.12.2022 executed by Yes Bank Ltd. in favour of Applicant i.e. J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (Ex AW-1);

- (ii) Facility Letter dated 23.03.2015 (Ex. AW-3);

- (iii) Master Facility Agreement dated 25.03.2025 executed between Defendant no. 1 and Yes Bank Ltd. (Ex. AW-4);

- (iv) Demand Promissory Note dated 25.03.2013 and Letter of Continuity of D.P. Note dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex AW-5);

- (v) Deed of Hypothecation dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-6);

- (vi) Negative Lien Undertaking dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-7);

- (vii) Common Letters of Continuing Guarantee dated 25.03.2013 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 3 (Ex. AW-8);

- (viii) Undertakings dated 25.03.2013 and Declarations of Submissions of PDC issued by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-9);

- (ix) Facility Letter dated 13.06.2014 and Letter dated 16.06.2014 issued by Yes Bank Ltd. (Ex. AW-10);

- (x) Loan Agreement dated 18.06.2014 executed between Defendant no. 1 and YBL, Demand Promissory Note dated 18.06.2014 and Letter of Continuity of Demand Promissory Note & Deed of Hypothecation dated 18.06.2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-11-colly);

- (xi) Letters of Continuing Guarantee dated 18.06.2014 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 3, Deed of Guarantee executed by Defendant no. 5 and Declaration of submission of PDCs dated 18.06.2014 (Ex. AW-12-colly);

- (xii) Facility Letter dated 27.12.2014 of Applicant Bank, Supplementary Loan Agreement dated 29.12.2014 executed between Defendant no. 1 and YBL, deed of hypothecation dated 29.12.2014, a Demand Promissory Note and Letter of Continuity of Demand Promissory Note dated 29.12.2014 executed by the Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-13-colly);

- (xiii) Letters of continuing Guarantee dated 29.12.2014 executed by Defendants no. 2 & 3 and Deed of Guarantee dated 29.12.2014 executed by Defendant no. 5 (Ex. AW-14-colly);

- (xiv) Letter(s) dated 02.03.2015 of Applicant Bank (Ex. AW-15-colly);

- (xv) Facility Agreement dated 08.07.2015 executed between Defendant no. 1 and YBL (Ex. AW-16);

- (xvi) Deed of Guarantee dated 08.07.2015 executed by Defendants no. 2 to 5 (Ex. AW-17-colly);

- (xvii) Letter dated 27.06.2013 issued by Defendant no. 1 to CDR Cell (Ex. AW-18);

- (xviii) Letter of Approval dated 28.02.2014 issued by CDR Cell (Ex. AW-19);

- (xix) Minutes of the monitoring committee meeting reports dated 19.06.2014 and 12.01.2015 (Ex. AW-20-colly);

- (xx) Order dated 26.08.2013 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Ex. AW-21);

- (xxi) Undertaking for Creation of Security duly furnished by the Borrower Company to YBL (Ex. AW-22);

- (xxii) Copy of Guarantee Invocation Notices dated 27.04.2018 issued by YBL to the Defendants (Ex. AW-23);

- (xxiii) Resolution dated 10.03.2023 passed by J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the deponent (Ex. AW-24);

- (xxiv) Copy of the Certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name of Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. to SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Ltd. issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India (Ex. AW-25);

- (xxv) Certified copy of the statement of account showing recoverable amount from the Defendant (Ex. AW-26).

7. So far as, evidence of Defendant no. 21 is concerned, it is matter of record that though said Defendant has filed its WS along with documents relied by it but no relief has been claimed by Applicant qua Proforma Defendants no. 6 to 24 which includes Defendant no. 21 as well.

8. During the pendency of this OA, it was informed by the Ld. counsel for the Applicant Bank that defendant no. 5 is before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

From the memo of parties filed by Yes Bank Ltd. at the time of filing this OA, it is revealed that Defendant no. 1 is also under Liquidation as per orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Moreover, Applicant i.e. J.C. Flowers Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. has also filed Certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name of Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. to SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Ltd. issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India (Ex. AW-25) which clearly shows that name of Defendant no. 1 has been changed to SVOGL Oil Gas and Energy Ltd. in place of Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd.

It is also matter of record that one connected TA NO. 287/2022 (Indian Overseas Bank Vs. SVOGL Oil Gas & Energy Limited) was also pending before this Tribunal which has already been disposed off vide Final Order dated 30.06.2025. In the said Final Order, Applicant Bank / IOB had filed orders passed by Ld. NCLT, Delhi with regard to Defendants no. 2, 4 & 5 (namely M/s TRS Technology Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Prem Singhee and Mr. Padam Singhee) which shows that CIRP Proceedings were commenced qua defendant no. 2 whereas personal insolvency proceedings were commenced qua defendants no. 4 & 5 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi. The said defendants have been impleaded as Defendants no. 5, Defendant no. 2 and Defendant no. 3 respectively in this OA, hence, it is apparent that CIRP and personal insolvency proceedings are pending qua these Defendants before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

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

9.1 In the present case, OL has already been appointed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for defendant no. 1 company.

9.2 Moreover, defendants no. 2, 3 & 5 are also before Ld. NCLT, Delhi.

9.3 Further, more defendant no. 4 is already ex parte since 24.07.2025.

9.4 So far as, defendants no. 6 to 24 are concerned, they are proforma defendants and no relief has been claimed by the Applicant against these defendants.

9.5 On the other hand, the witnesses of applicant has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the applicant bank gone 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.

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

9.7 Since defendant no. 1 is already under liquidation as per orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, hence, secured assets / hypothecated goods / stocks of defendant no. 1 shall be disposed off as per directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and no order for recovery of dues can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendant no. 1. However, it is directed that in case applicant Banks receives any amount from liquidation proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

9.8 Since CIRP proceedings have already been initiated qua Defendant no. 5 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendant no. 5 at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendant no. 5 in case NCLT / CIRP proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

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

9.9 Since defendants no. 2 & 3 are also before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no order qua defendants no. 2 & 3 also can be passed against said defendants, at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 2 & 3 in case proceedings before Ld. NCLT are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.


TA-37/2022

It is directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, they shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

9.10 Consequently, TA No. 37/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of applicant against defendant no. 4 only (being corporate guarantor to the Borrower company i.e. defendant no. 1), who is liable to pay the dues of the applicant along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @13% p.a., from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

- (i) TA No. 37/2022 stands allowed and the defendant no. 4 is directed to pay to the applicant bank, within 30 days, a sum of Rs. 360,52,64,846.41 (Rupees Three Hundred Sixty Crore Fifty Two Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Six and Paise Forty One 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 failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc., if any, belonging to the defendant no. 4.

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

(ii) Since defendant no. 1 is already under liquidation as per orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, hence, secured assets / hypothecated goods / stocks of defendant no. 1 shall be disposed off as per directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and no order for recovery of dues can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendant no. 1. However, it is directed that in case applicant Banks receives any amount from liquidation proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

(iii) Since CIRP proceedings have already been initiated qua Defendant no. 5 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed by this Tribunal qua defendant no. 5 at this stage. However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendant no. 5 in case NCLT / CIRP proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law. It is also directed that in case applicant Bank receives any amount from CIRP proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

(iv) Since defendants no. 2 & 3 are also before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no order qua defendants no. 2 & 3 also can be passed against said defendants, at this stage.

However, it is directed that applicant bank shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua defendants no. 2 &

3 in case proceedings before Ld. NCLT are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is directed that in case Applicant Bank receives any amount from the proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT, they shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

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

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

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

- (viii) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-III, Delhi on 15.01.2026.

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

File be closed and consigned to records.

18.11.2025 (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 18.11.2025

This image is a scan of a blank page. The background is a light beige or off-white color. There is a faint vertical line running down the center of the page, likely due to the scanning process or the paper's texture. A few small, dark specks are scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. No text, images, or other markings are present on the page.