Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. In respect of the `Loan', taken by the 1st Respondent / Appellant, the `Corporate Debtor', stood as `Guarantor', and just because the `Corporate Debtor', has acted as a `Guarantor', which does not mean that the `Superstructures', belong to the `Corporate Debtor'. Thus, the `Petitioner / Bank', has filed IA No. 199 / 2024, seeking `Impleadment', as `Proposed 2nd Respondent', in main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024. 2nd Respondent / Liquidator's Pleas:

19. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator, submits that the `Petitioner / Bank' (`Proposed 2nd Respondent in main IA No.199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 & Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 `Appeal'), does not enjoy any `Exclusive Charge', over the `Superstructures', built upon the `Land', of the `Corporate Debtor', rather, they have only a `Pari Passu Charge', on the `Superstructures', built on the `Land' of the `Corporate Debtor', as evidenced, by its own `Sanction Letter', dated 30.03.2011.

20. In this connection, it is pointed out on behalf of the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator that the Petitioner / Bank's own Form D dated 06.08.2022 (at Page 38 of IA No. 199 / 2024), reiterates that the `Bank', has only a `Pari Passu Charge' and has also relinquished the `Asset', subject to such `Security Interest', i.e. the subject matter of this `lis' into the `Liquidation Estate' of the `Corporate Debtor', by their own admission.

21. According to the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator, through a Letter dated 22.12.2010 (vide in proceeding No. BPS/198/C-18/NZ/GHMC/2008), the `Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation', had penalised and regulated the `Construction of Superstructures', built on the `Land' of the `Corporate Debtor', for being unauthorised, and in deviation, to the `Sanctioned Plan'. Also that, such `Penalty' for `Regularisation', was paid, through a `Demand Draft', on the `Petitioner / Bank' (formerly, Syndicate Bank). Therefore, it is the stand of the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator, that the `Superstructures', were erected on the `Land' of the `Corporate Debtor', before 22.12.2010, which IA No.199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 & Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 itself is much earlier to the sanctioning of the `Loans', vide `Sanction Letter' dated 30.03.2011. Hence, it is the contention of the `2nd Respondent / Liquidator', that the `Petitioner / Bank', cannot claim that such `Loans', were sanctioned for the `purpose of Construction of the said Superstructures'.

30. At this juncture, this `Tribunal', pertinently points out that the Petitioner / Bank, in its `Sanction Letter', dated 30.03.2011, had stated that, it has a `Pari Passu Charge', only, on the `Superstructures', built on the `Land' of the `Corporate Debtor'. Even the Form D, dated 06.08.2022 of the Petitioner / Bank, furnished with the `Liquidator', as a `Financial Creditor' of the `Corporate Debtor', unerringly points out that the `Petitioner / Bank', does IA No.199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 & Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 not have a `Exclusive Charge', over the `Superstructures', built upon the `Land' of the `Corporate Debtor'.

38. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the instant main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024), hovers around the `Issue of Eviction', of the 1st Respondent / Appellant', from the `Land' of the `Corporate Debtor', even IA No.199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 & Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 though, the `Lease Deed', dated 30.09.2017, which had expired on 30.09.2022, and further that, the Petitioner / Bank, has a `Pari Passu Charge', in respect of the `Superstructures', built on the `Land' of the `Corporate Debtor', and in any event, the `Petitioner / Bank', nor the `1 st Respondent / Appellant', cannot place reliance, on the alleged `Rental Deed', for pressing the IA No. 199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, this `Tribunal', comes to an `irresistible' and `inevitable' conclusion, that the `Petitioner / Bank', is not a `Necessary and Proper Party', to get itself `Impleaded', in the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024. Even, without the presence of the `Petitioner / Bank' (`Intervenor'), this `Tribunal', is of the earnest opinion that the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, with the `available material on records', can be disposed of. Viewed in that perspective and looking at from any angle, the instant IA No. 199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, is devoid of any merits and it fails.