JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. All these three writ petitions are filed challenging an interim order dated 01.02.2021 in MA/76/KOB/2020 in MA/30/KOB/2019 in IA/71/KOB/2019 in IBA/240/2019 dated 01.02.2021 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench.

2. The 1st respondent-Union Bank of India extended various credit facilities to a Company named M/s. Raihan Healthcare Private Limited. The petitioners in the three writ petitions stood as guarantors and mortgaged their properties to the Bank as security for the advances to the Company. The first petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3872/2021 was Chairman and Managing Director of the Company. The Bank filed O.A. No. 474/2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam to recover dues from the Company.

3. While the O.A. was pending, the Bank invoked Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and filed application IBA/240/2019 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Company. The application was admitted by the NCLT on 20.03.2019, thereby initiating CIRP. As an Insolvency Resolution Plan could not be formulated, the NCLT appointed the 2nd respondent as Liquidator of the Company (Corporate Debtor) on 17.01.2020, to carry out the liquidation process.

4. The 2nd respondent-Liquidator reported to the Tribunal that land area of 100.16 Ares mortgaged to the Bank is leasehold land of the promoters/Directors of the Corporate Debtors for a period of 99 years for constructions of a hospital. The lease deed provided for mortgage of the leasehold land for obtaining loan. The land was mortgaged to the Bank and loan was availed. Another 16.55 Ares of land inside the hospital premises owned by Promoters/Directors was used for hospital utility services without signing any lease deed (implied lease) and was mortgaged to the Meenachil Urban Cooperative Bank. Major part of the hospital and its utilities are constructed on leasehold land.

5. The Liquidator filed M.A. No. 76/KOB/2020 seeking to direct both the Banks to hand over physical possession of the mortgaged leasehold land of the Corporate Debtor into the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor. Both the Banks expressed their willingness to release the property on condition that their admitted claims shall be released under priority. The tribunal considered the M.A. No. 76/KOB/2020 in detail and on 01.02.2021, ordered as follows:

“(i) Both respondents are directed to hand over the physical possession of the mortgaged leasehold land of the Corporate Debtor (both Express Lease and Implied Lease lands used by the Corporate Debtor) to the Applicant in order to use as the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor.

(ii) The applicant is also allowed to add the mortgaged land (Express Lease-100.16 Ares and Implies Lease - 78.45 Ares) into the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor.

(iii) The Liquidator is directed to strictly follow the procedures to take over the property in question, as per the Regulations.

(iv) This order should be implemented immediately on receipt of copy of this order, at any rate within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.”

The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the said order and directions.

6. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4672/2021 stated that they have filed Ext.P1 Intervention Application IA No. 63/2020 in the IBA/240/IB/2019 on 16.03.2020 under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 contending that the lease executed by the petitioners in favour of the Corporate Debtor is invalid in view of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore the mortgage of the land in favour of the Bank is also invalid.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Liquidator filed the application invoking Sections 36 and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Section 36(4)(c) provides that personal assets of a shareholder or the partner of a Corporate Debtor shall not form part