Ammeet Kamal Agarwal vs Axis Bank Limited

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1216 of 2023 & I.A. No. 532, 6573 of 2024, 150 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Ammeet Kamal Agarwal Suspended Director of ...Appellant Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Sharma, Ms. Kaushambi, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Anuj P Agarwala, Adv. for R1 S. Dixit Karan Vir Khosla, Adv. for RP Rishi Sood, Intervenor

ORDER

06.10.2025: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Ld. Counsel for the

Financial Creditor as well as the RP.

2. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2023 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority by which the section 7 application filed by Axis

Bank has been admitted.

3. The Axis Bank has filed an application under Section 7 against the CD

claiming debt and default of Rs. 16,95,95,909 as on 16.03.2023.

4. The CD filed the reply opposing section 7 application. The Adjudicating

Authority heard the parties and by impugned order admitted the section 7

application. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

5. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he was directed to deposit

the amount of claim Rs. 10,49,26,262/- which was noticed by this court on

15.09.2023. However, the Appellant has not deposited the amount and proposal under Section 12A has not been accepted which is recorded in the

order dated 09.05.2024.

6. This Tribunal subsequently vacated the interim order on 25.07.2025

and thereafter the appeal has been heard.

7. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the financial creditor has

sanctioned the loan of Rs. 24.90 Cr. but disbursement was only of Rs. 12.50

Cr. as on 31.03.2017. It is further submitted that CD has given the

documents pertaining to property by letter dated 29.03.2017, however,

subsequently, Axis Bank informed that original documents are not with the

Bank. He has further submitted that whereas Part IV of the section 7

application clearly mentioned about the mortgage of the said property and the

original documents were received. It is submitted that worth of the CD was

much more and Adjudicating Authority committed an error in admitting the

application filed under Section 7.

8. Counsel for the Respondent opposing the submission of the Counsel for

the Appellant and submitted that disbursement is not disputed and debt and

default is admitted and finding have been returned by the Adjudicating

Authority. It is submitted that with regard to the non-disbursement of full

amount as sanctioned it cannot be ground for opposing the application under

Section 7. It is further submitted that in so far as the document which bank

subsequently communicated are not available, no steps were taken by the

CD. It is submitted that debt and default having been found, section 7 was

rightly admitted. It is submitted that OTS proposal has been given by the CD

even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Adjudicating

Authority which was not accepted by the Financial Creditor which itself

indicate the existence of debt and default.

9. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

10. In so far as the submission of the Appellant that sanction of Rs. 24.90

Cr. was given whereas disbursement was only Rs. 12.90 Cr. the fact that

balance amount was not disbursed cannot be ground to reject the section 7

application. It is not disputed that subsequently the sanction was revised and

was confined to Rs. 12.5 Cr. only.

11. In so far as the original documents of the property which was

communicated by the Appellant to the Bank vide its letter dated 29.03.2017

which is at Annexure A2 to the appeal, it is true that Part IV of the Section 7

application referred to the mortgage property. There is no registered mortgage

deed between the parties on record. Mortgage is claimed by deposit of title

and Bank can claim mortgage of only those assets for which titles deeds are

deposited and if no title deeds are deposited the claim of mortgage cannot be

raised.

12. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that mortgaged were

registered. We are of the view that at this stage it is not necessary for us to

express any opinion or record any finding with regard to mortgage or title of

the property.

13. The Adjudicating Authority has returned a finding of debt and default,

disbursement is not denied and it is not the case of the CD that amount has

been repaid to the Financial Creditor. The submission of the Appellant that

worth of the CD is much more then the amount claimed that may not be

relevant for the application for rejecting the application under Section 7 when

debt and default of more than 1 Cr. is established. The fact that the CD has

given OTS during the pendency of the CIRP and also submitted 12A proposal itself indicate the acceptance of debt and default. We do not find any error in

the order of Adjudicating Authority admitting under Section 7 application.

14. Counsel for the Appellant has lastly submitted that the Appellant has

still communicated to the Bank that he is ready to offer the higher amount

under 12A. We make it clear that it is always open for the CD to make

appropriate proposal which can be considered in accordance with law by the

CoC as per Section 12A of the IBC.

15. Counsel for the RP has submitted that certain assets were sold after

mortarium. The said issues are not relevant for the present proceedings and

can be considered by the Adjudicating Authority.

16. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal.

17. All I.As, are disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] The Chairperson

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Sheetal/NN