Indian Bank vs M/S. Metenere Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Indian Bank ...Appellant Versus Metenere Ltd., Through RP & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ms. Likivi K. Jakitalu, Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary and Ms. Azal Aekram, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Ankur Mittal and Ms. Muskan Jain, Advocates for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.09.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 22.04.2025 passed

by the adjudicating authority (NCLT, New Delhi, Principal Bench), in I.A. No.

4275/2024. The I.A. was filed by the Indian Bank praying for rejection of the

resolution plan and further direction to set aside the decision of the CoC

relating to payment of plan amount inter see members of the CoC on pro-rata

basis including the decision approving payout of the dissenting financial

creditors on pro-rata basis and not on basis of security interest.

3. Adjudicating authority by impugned order has rejected the application

relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'India Resurgence

ARC Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr.' reported in [(2021 19 SCC

672].

4. Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam appearing for the appellant

submits that issue is fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal dated

28.01.2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 321/2024 in 'State Bank of

India' Vs. 'IDBI Bank Ltd.', where this Tribunal has taken the same view.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraphs 13 to 15 which

are as follows:

"13. Insofar as submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant that correctness of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Amit Metaliks Limited' (Supra) has already been referred to the larger bench by Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore' (Supra), this Tribunal in 'Beacon Trusteeship Ltd.', (Supra) had occasion to notice Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore' (Supra) where reference was made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Amit Metaliks Limited' (Supra). This Tribunal in Paragraph 54 held that law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Amit Metaliks Limited' (Supra) can very well relied until a different view is expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the reference made in 'DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore' (Supra). Paragraph 54 of the Judgment of this Tribunal is as follows:

"54. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Vistara ITCL (India) Ltd.' (Supra) does not come to help of the Appellant in the present case. It is relevant to notice that Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3, made a reference to the earlier Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra), which reference is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra) can very well be relied until a different view is expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reference pending before it."

14. The Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order has relied on the Judgment of this Tribunal in

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1197 of 2025 2 of 4 'Oriental Bank of Commerce' (Supra) and after noticing the scheme in Section 53(1) has made following observations in Paragraph 7 of the Judgment:

"7. From the emphasized text in 53(1)(b)(ii), we note that two word have been stressed on in the statute are 'between and among'. Thus while the first word i.e. "between" is intended to integrate the two different classes i.e. the workmen and the Secured Creditor, which shall therefore rank equally, the other word i.e "among" signifies the equality within a group which herein consists of all such secured creditors who have relinquished their security interest in line with Section52. Since there is no quarrel on the issue of relinquishment, therefore the significance of the word "among"

relates to the inter-se relationship between all such secured creditors and these have to be then given an equitable treatment which shall mean in proportion to their admitted claim. Section 53 does not differentiate between the quantum or magnitude of the relinquishment, which is taken care while distributing the proceeds on a proportional basis. We are therefore inclined to agree with the contention of the applicant that the distribution made by the respondent is not as per the stipulations of section 53."

15. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly taken the view that the distribution amongst the Secured Creditors has to be on the basis of their admitted claim, which is the statutory scheme delineated by Section 53(1) and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court existing as on date in 'Amit Metaliks Limited' (Supra)."

5. We are of the view that issues raised by the appellant are fully covered

against the appellant by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'India

Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) as relied by the adjudicating authority

and further the judgment of this Tribunal dated 28.01.2025 in 'State Bank

of India' (supra) also covers the issue.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1197 of 2025 3 of 4 In view of the aforesaid, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as well as the judgment of this Tribunal, this appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1197 of 2025 4 of 4