Punjab National Bank vs Deepankur Sharma & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Punjab National Bank ...Appellants Versus Deepankur Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Gautam Singhal, Advocate for R1. Mr. Deepankur Sharma, RP in person for R1. Mr. Hitesh Sanchar, Mrs. Anju Jain and Miss Akansha, Advocate for R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.09.2024: I.A. No. 6067 of 2024

This is an application praying for condonation of 45 days' delay in refiling

of the appeal. Sufficient cause has been shown in paragraph- 3, 4 & 5 of the

application for condonation of 45 days' delay in refiling. Refiling delay is

condoned.

I.A. No. 6147 of 2024

This is an application praying for condonation of 14 days' delay in filing

the appeal. Appellant has given sufficient cause for condonation of delay in

paragraph- 2 & 3 of the application. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay

condoned.

C.A. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1683 of 2024

Heard counsel for the appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by Adjudicating

Authority dated 29.04.2024 by which Adjudicating Authority has rejected the

IA No. 1166 of 2023 filed by the appellant to classify the appellant as Secured

Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority while deciding the IA No. 1166 of 2023

has made the following observations :-

"IA(I.B.C)/1166(CH)2023 This is an application under Section 60 (5) of IB Code read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules. The application is a member of CoC. The applicant seeks direction to Respondent No. 1 to classify the claim of the applicant as Secured Financial Creditor instead of Unsecured Financial Creditor and other reliefs. A detailed reply has been filed by the Resolution Professional. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicant as well as the counsel for the Resolution Professional. The Form No. CHD1 (pursuant to Section 384 read with 77, 78 and 79 of the Companies Act and Rule 3(1) of the Companies (Registration of charges) Rules 2004 - an application for registration of creation/modification of charges under SARFAESI shows that the applicant Page 11 Item 8 in the type of charge indicated that the charge belongs to Other types i.e. Stock Stored at Warehouse. This being the public documents. RP is supposed to get guided by this document. Further in the statement of claim form filed by the Financial Creditor - Punjab National Bank vide column No. 8 has stated that Pledge of Rice Stock is the details of the security given and it is further clarified that the stock has already been sold by the bank for Rs. 109.47 lacs on 18.03.2021 and the same has been appropriated in the account."

2. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant has even

sold the stock prior to the initiation of CIRP which is mentioned in the claim

form which was filed by the appellant.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1683 of 2024 2 of 3

3. We are of the view that in facts of present case where in details of

security given details of rice stock was given, which was already sold the

appellant cannot be held to be Secured Creditors. That no error was committed

by Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application to declare the appellant

as Secured Creditors. No merits in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

harleen/NN

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1683 of 2024 3 of 3