State Bank Of India vs L.R. Builders Private Limited

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2206 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8266, 8267, 8268 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:

State Bank of India ....Appellant

Vs.

L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent

Present: For Appellant:- Mr. Ankur Mittal, Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv. for SBI For Respondent:- Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Kanika Singhal, Lavanya Pathak, Ritik Nandan, Harendra Raj, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.01.2025: This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024

by which an application bearing IB No. 612/ND/2022 filed by SBI (Appellant

herein) under Section 7 of the Code for the resolution of an amount of Rs.

203,81,38,395.47/- against M/s LR Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate

Guarantor/CD) has been dismissed.

2. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal while allowing the

application filed by the Corporate Debtor under Section 65 of the Code holding

that the Bank is in collusion with the borrower to go after the Corporate

Debtor.

3. In the reply filed by Respondent No. 1, it has been submitted that in a

proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 963 of 2024, the

Hon'ble Court has observed that "admittedly, the debt of M/s PP Jewellers,

Delhi has been discharged and the guarantees as well as the title deeds

furnished by M/s LR Builders Pvt. Ltd. is to be released/returned. Consequently, this Court directs the State Bank of India to return/release the

guarantees and title documents furnished by M/s LR Builders Pvt. Ltd."

4. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that pursuant to the

aforesaid order dated 29.11.2024, not only M/s PP Jewellers has been

discharged from its debt because the amount of OTS has been paid to the SBI

but also the title deeds furnished by the Respondent have been returned /

released. He has, therefore, submitted that no cause of action survives in

favour of the Appellant/Applicant under Section 7 to pursue the same

litigation before any court of law. He has thus requested that in view of the

above development/factual situation, the present appeal may be dismissed as

infructuous.

5. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Adv. appearing on behalf of the Appellant/SBI has

not raised any objection in this regard.

6. In view thereof, the present appeal is hereby dismissed as having been

rendered infructuous. No costs.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

Mr. Indevar Pandey Member (Technical)

SC/Ravi