Indian Bank vs State Bank Of India & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Indian Bank ...Appellant

Versus

State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Amod K. Dalela, Mr. Pradeep Pandey and Ms. Ashna, Advocates

For Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shweta Dubey and Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Sumit Sinha, advocate for RP/R-2

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.10.2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority dated 06.07.2024 by which order Intervention Petition P-7/2024

filed by the State Bank of India has been allowed.

This Appal has been filed by the Indian Bank challenging the order. It

is contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that it was the Indian Bank

who was applicant in Section 95 Applications and there was no reason for

permitting State Bank of India to intervene in the matter. All facts are to be

placed by the Applicant only and another Financial Creditor has no locus to

intervene in the matter.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State Bank of India submits that

State Bank of India is the lead bank and there was a guarantee with the banks including the State Bank of India and the Appellant Indian Bank and there is

only one bank guarantee in favour of the lead bank.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that guarantee was also in

favour of other bank, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on

decree.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also pointed out the order of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8411 of 2019 - Bank of

Baroda & Ors. Vs. MBL Infrastructures Limited & Ors. wherein paragraph

64 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:

"64. We remind ourselves of the ultimate object of the Code, which is to put the corporate debtor back on the rails. Incidentally, we also note that no prejudice would be caused to the dissenting creditors as their interests would otherwise be secured by the resolution plan itself, which permits them to get back the liquidation value of their respective credit limits. Thus, on the peculiar facts of the present case, we do not wish to disturb the resolution plan leading to the on- going operation of the Respondent No.1."

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also pointed out the Minutes of

the Lenders meeting where Appellant as well as the State Bank of India are

all members.

We have considered submission of the parties and perused the record.

It is not denied that State Bank of India in the lead bank and Corporate

Debtor's resolution plan have been approved, which need to be implemented.

The Application under Section 95 has been filed by the Indian Bank in which

the intervention was sought by the State Bank of India. We do not find any

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1770 of 2024 2 of 3 error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority permitting State Bank of India

to intervene.

We make it clear that intervention by State Bank of India does not

reflect any opinion by the Court on the merits of the claim of either of the

parties and proceedings under Section 95 has to be decided in accordance

with law subject to above observation we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1770 of 2024 3 of 3