State Bank Of India vs Mr. Navjit Singh Liquidator Of M/S Grs ...

State Bank of India ...Appellant

Versus

Navjit Singh ...Respondent

Present: For Appellants: Mr. Atul Sharma, Ms. Renuka Iyer, Mr. Aditya Vashisth, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate for Liquidator

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

16.03.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Mr. Atul Sharma

and Learned Counsel for the Liquidator-Mr. Sumit Sinha.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 30th November, 2021

passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the Application being I.A. No.

1456/ND/2021. The I.A. was filed by the State Bank of India where following

prayers have been made:

"a. allow the present Application and adjudicate/ascertain the claim amount i.e. Rs. 29,34,54,879.59/- payable by the Corporate Debtor as on 28.02.2021 along with cost, pendente lite and future interest @ 10.55% p.a. from 01.03.2021 and Penal Interest @ 5% p.a. (simple) over the documented rate in respect of its Credit Facility together with interest, further interest, Liquidated Damages and other charges thereon at the contractual rates on the footing of the compound interest till payment and/or realization in full; and 2

b. set aside the communication/email dated 29.08.2020 and 01.10.2020 of the Liquidator to the extent of imposing conditions for the permission to sale of Agricultural Land bearing Survey Number Khasra No. 432 (4-16) and 433(4-16), situated at village Quadipur, Delhi; c. direct the Liquidator to hand over physical possession of the Agricultural Land bearing Survey Number Khasra No. 432 (4-16) and 433(4-16), situated at village Quadipur, Delhi; and d. permit the Applicant, being the secured creditor, to sell/realize the above-mentioned Mortgaged Property, under the aegis of this Hon'ble Tribunal; and e. pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The Adjudicating Authority has referred to Regulations 2(ea), 2A, 21A,

37 of the Liquidation Regulations and Section 52/53 of the Code in paragraph

13 and has passed following order:

"13.As the Respondent has no objection in allowing the application subject to compliance of Liquidation Regulations, therefore, without going into the merits of the prayer of the Applicant, we dispose of the application with the direction to make payment of Liquidator's fees and ensure compliance of Regulations 2(ea), 2A, 21A, 37 of the Liquidation Regulations and Section 52/53 of the Code, and act as per the provisions of law."

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no adjudication

with regard to prayer 'a' where claim of Rs. 29,34,54,879.59/- was raised and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 151 of 2022. 3

further the Appellant was not liable to pay any fee with regard to the securities

which are out of Liquidation Process as opted by the Appellant.

5. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that claim of Rs.

29,34,54,879.59/- of the Appellant has already been admitted by the

Liquidator hence no further adjudication was required with regard to the said

claim. It is further submitted that even if the securities which are out of

Liquidation Process, the Appellant is liable to pay fee as per Regulation 21Aas

well as 2(ea) of the Liquidation Regulations.

6. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties

and perused the record. In so far as the claim of the Appellant is concerned of

Rs. 29,34,54,879.59/- it has been admitted by the Liquidator the said claim

is the claim admitted in the Liquidation Process and no further adjudication

was called for with regard to the said claim. In the present case, the admission

of the claim is not sought to be challenged by State Bank of India. In so far as

the payment of Liquidator's Fee in paragraph 13 as noted above, Adjudicating

Authority has disposed of the application with the direction to make payment

of Liquidator's Fee and ensure compliance of Regulations 2(ea), 2A, 21A, 37

of the Liquidation Regulations and Section 52/53 of the Code. The order

passed by the Adjudicating Authority does not warrant any interference. What

was directed was as per Liquidation Regulation 21A as extracted in Paragraph

10 of the Judgment from which it is clear, even if the secured creditor proceeds

to realise its security interest it is liable to pay fee as contemplated under

Regulation 21A (2)(a). The Adjudicating Authority has only directed the

Applicant to follow the regulations as noted in paragraph 13.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 151 of 2022. 4

7. We do not find any error in the said direction which does not warrant

any interference. Appellant has to comply with the Regulations as referred to

in the Impugned Judgment.

With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 151 of 2022.