New Tech Imports Private Limited vs City Union Bank Limited And Another

IN THE MATTER OF: New Tech Imports Pvt. Ltd ...Appellant

Versus

City Union Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : None

For Respondent : Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Ms. Sanya Lamba and Ms. Muskan, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

13.02.2024 Heard Counsel for both the parties. This Appeal has been

filed against the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed in I.A. No.5148 of

2023. The Application was filed by Encore Asset Reconstruction Company

Private Limited praying for following relief(s):

"a) Allow the present Application;

b) Allow Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private

Limited to be substituted in place of City Union Bank Limited;

c) Take the Amended Memo;

d) pass such orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and

proper in the said circumstances and render justice."

The case of the Applicant in the application was that M/s City Union

Bank Limited Original - Financial Creditor has vide Assignment Agreement

dated 31.03.2023 has assigned the debt to the applicant, hence, the applicant

be substituted in place of City Union Bank Limited. The application has been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority, aggrieved by that order, this appeal

has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submit that

the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 21.12.2023 was filed before the

Adjudicating Authority which order of Debt Recovery Tribunal has directed

parties to maintain status-quo which order has not been referred to by the

Adjudicating Authority.

It is further submitted that there was no debt and default, hence, there

was no NPA. We have considered submission of Learned Counsel for the

Appellant and perused the record. The Assignment Deed is also subject

matter of challenge before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Coming to the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 21.12.2023, we

are of the view that the said order has no bearing on the Assignment dated

31.03.2023 which was done much prior to the said order. Only prayer in the

application was to substitute the Encore Asset Reconstruction Company

Private Limited in place of City Union Bank Limited. Application has been

allowed has only permitting substitution of the Encore Asset Reconstruction

Company Private Limited. By allowing the application it cannot be said that

any other issue have been decided by the Adjudicating Authority by the

impugned order.

We thus, do not find any error in the order warranting interference by

Appellate Court in this Appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 275 of 2024 2 of 3 We make it clear that, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of Section 7 Application which is to be decided in accordance with law.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 275 of 2024 3 of 3