In the matter of Three C Management Private Limited

IA-3395 of 2026: The prayer made in the captioned application reads thus:- “(a) Pass an order declaring the Sale Notice dated 11.07.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1 as invalid, together with the e-auction proposed to be conducted pursuant thereto in respect of Unit No. 2301, Tower FS-3, Four Seasons Private Residences, Delhi One, Sector-16B, Noida, as void ab initio, non est, illegal and without jurisdiction, having been issued during the subsistence of the moratorium under Section 14(1)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and being contrary to the provisions of Section 31(1) of the Code upon approval of the Applicant's Resolution Plan;

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management (b) Restrain Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, their officers, employees, agents, assigns or any person claiming through or under them from proceeding with, conducting, confirming or in any manner giving effect to the e-auction pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 11.07.2026, or from creating any third-party rights or interests in respect of Unit No. 2301, Tower FS-3, Four Seasons Private Residences, Delhi One, Sector-16B, Noida, including accepting, appropriating or dealing with any bid amount, Earnest Money Deposit or sale consideration received or proposed to be received pursuant thereto; (c) Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to forthwith withdraw the Sale Notice dated 11.07.2026 and all consequential steps taken pursuant thereto; (d) Pending further orders, pass an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, their officers, agents, assigns, or anyone claiming through or under them, from (i) proceeding with, conducting, confirming, or giving effect in any manner to the e-auction under the Sale Notice dated 11.07.2026; (ii) accepting, opening, or appropriating any bid, Earnest Money Deposit, or sale consideration received or proposed to be received pursuant thereto; and (iii) creating any third-party right, title, or interest in Unit No. 2301, Tower FS-3, Four Seasons with liberty to the Private Residences, Noida, pursuant thereto Respondents to apply for vacation of this order on notice.”

2. The salient pleas espoused in the application are:- a) The Applicant is entitled to execution of Conveyance Deed in respect of Unit No. 2301, Tower FS-3, Four Seasons Private Residences, Delhi One, Sector-16B, Noida as the unit, hereinafter referred to Unit No. 2301 is allotted in favour of Respondent No. 3 viz. CD.

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management b) The impugned Sale Notice impinges not only upon the implementation of the approved Resolution Plan and the rights of the Applicant thereunder. 3. To examine the claim of the Applicant, we need to analysis the Tripartite Agreement dated 06.07.2017 entered into between Boulevard Projects Private Limited, M/s Three C Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. and ICICI Bank Limited, a banking company within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Respondent No. 2) in the application. Indubitably, the Respondent No. 2 extended financial facility in respect of the Unit claimed by the Applicant. In terms of the provisions contained in clause 6 of the deed, in the event of default in terms of the Loan Agreement or there being other inability, incapacity, omission or negligence on the part of the mortgager, the bank shall be entitled to execution the sale/conveyance/sub-lease deed of the Schedule Properties in its favour upon the completion of the project. Apparently, there was default in repayment of the amount of debt which has not been denied or disputed either by the Applicant or the RP. Therefore, the clause 6 of the deed came into operation and it is the Respondent No. 2 which turned entitled to have Sale Deed of the scheduled property executed in its favour. Relevant excerpt of the deed reads thus:-

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

XXX

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

4. During the course of hearing, the RP categorically submitted that the CD never claimed the Unit No. 2301 as part of its assets. He opposed the application filed by the Applicant. As can be seen from the e-mail dated 20.07.2026, the RP informed the Applicant that the bank already enforced the security interest created on the units. Relevant excerpt of the e-mail written by the RP reads thus:- “Accordingly, based on the categorical position communicated by ICICI Bank, it appears the Bank had already enforced the security interest created on the units. However, the complete underlying records and supporting documents, including a copy of the approved Resolution Plan of Boulevard Projects Private Limited setting out the treatment of the said units, were not made available to the Resolution Professional.” 5. Indubitably, as the CD did not discharge the liability of repaying the loan amount to Respondent No. 2, in terms of clause 6 of Tripartite Agreement, the bank had become entitled to execution of Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed qua the unit in question in its favour. 6. Neither the Applicant nor the RP denied the Tripartite Agreement. It is not the case of the Applicant that any Conveyance Deed was executed in its favour. In the absence of execution of any Sale Deed, neither the Applicant nor the CD could claim itself the owner of the property. In terms of the provisions of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, sale is transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid or part-promised. In terms of the provisions, the sale of Tangible immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument. The Applicant could not produce any instrument to show the ownership of the CD qua the Unit No. 2301 (ibid).

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

On the contrary, RP who could take control of CD as per the provisions of Section 17 and 18 of the Code himself denied that the Unit No. 2301 is owned by the CD. Besides, the notice assailed by the Applicant is dated 11.07.2026, while the application for approval of Resolution Plan was decided on 15.07.2026. On 15.07.2026, the SRA did not bring the sale notice to the notice of this Tribunal. Rather he chose to prefer the present application after the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal. Could the CD have any claim on the Unit No. 2301, the RP could assert the same during CIRP. Not only that the RP never asserted the claim on the property but he also participated in the hearing of the present application and specifically asserted that the Unit No. 2301 is not owned by CD. 7. A perusal of the Resolution Plan reveals that a reference to ‘Information Memorandum’ has been made therein. There is specific mention in the Resolution Plan that the ownership status of the properties in which the Corporate Debtor made investment remains unclear. The Plan makes a mention about investment in Delhi One Project, Noida- A Tripartite Agreement executed among Boulevard Projects Private Limited, Three Facility Management Private Limited and ICICI Bank (Lender). It has been clearly mentioned in the Plan that the money invested in three private Residence referred to therein viz. No. 3202 (Tower FS-1, 25th Level); 2301 (Tower FS-3, 15th Level); 3201 (Tower FS-1, 25th Level) was financed through a loan facility of Rs. 15 Crores from ICICI Bank, which was secured by way of mortgage over the aforementioned residential units. A stand is taken in the Plan that the aforementioned particulars disclosed in the Plan were mere information

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management available with RP and besides such information, no other information was available. In clause 4 of the Plan, a reference has been made to financial statement of the CD for the financial years ending on 31.03.2018, 31.03.2017 and 31.03.2016. In the statement, there is no mention about any of the aforementioned units. The statement as reproduced in the Plan reads thus:- “4. Financial Statements

The Financial statement of the Corporate Debtor is as follow;. However, upon inspecting the MCA portal for TCFMPL, it was observed that the balance sheet for the period ending 31 Mar 2018 has not been uploaded on the MCA portal. Amount (In Rs)

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

8. The Resolution Plan also does not make any reference to ICICI Bank as secured creditor, thus apparently, the RP did not assert any claim of CD on the units referred to hereinabove. However, the Plan make a reference to charge of Rs. 15 Crores on the CD. 9. It is seen from the Valuation Report given by the valuator Mr. Shravan Kumar Vishnoi, enclosed as Annexure A-36 to the application preferred for approval of Resolution Plan, both the fair value and liquidation value of the assets of the CD are nil. There is no mention of any immovable/fixed assets in the inventory of the assets of the CD noted by the said valuer. The relevant excerpt of the report reads thus:-

10. We also note from the Valuation Report given to RP by Mr. Gyaneshwar Sahai that no fixed assets far-less either of the aforementioned units were included in the assets of the CD. Clause 24 of the Valuation Report given by Mr. Gyaneshwar reads thus:-

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

11. Apparently, the valuation of assets of the CD as assessed by two valuators is nil. The Resolution Plan could be submitted by the SRA with reference to the Valuation Report and the information given in the Information Memorandum. As neither any of the secured or unsecured creditors of the CD were included in CoC nor the Plan has been approved by them, we clarify that the claim over the aforementioned assets would be of the creditors viz. secured or unsecured and the SRA will facilitate them to assert their claim over the same, as the SRA has submitted its claim only with reference to nil value of the assets. Indubitably, clean slate principle will apply only with reference to such assets for which value is assigned and such value is formed as basis for the Resolution Plan. 12. We also see from the certificate given by the RP in Form H, the fair value and liquidation value of CD is zero. Thus, the SRA who could offer the Resolution Plan with reference to zero fair and liquidation value of the CD cannot claim any right on any of its assets of the CD discovered and found in future. Clause 7A of the certificate reads thus:-

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management

13. It is the misconception of the Applicant that in terms of the Resolution Plan, the Unit No. 2301 could accrue to CD or SRA. We may also be not oblivious of the fact that when the Plan Value is only Rs. 36,11,000/-, the value of unit 2301 is much higher. The SRA was fully conscious that if a plea could be taken regarding the Unit No. 2301 being asset of the CD, the Plan value as also the valuation report could be questioned. In a designed way, the SRA did not raise any issue regarding the asset of CD, valuation of which is nil and thereafter, he raised the issue, after the decision in the application preferred for approval of the Plan was taken. 14. The IA is misconceived and devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. No cost. On filing of an appropriate application, by aggrieved party, we may take view under the provisions of Section 64A of IBC, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (SHISHIR AGARWAL) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER(T) MEMBER (J)

I.A No. 3395/ND/2026 in C.P.(IB) – 1114/ND/2020 BVG India Ltd. vs. Three C Facility Management