The court holds that the ongoing proceedings must consider the financial implications for the appellant despite project completion.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

This Company Appeal is filed under Section 303 of the Companies Act , 2013 against the order passed by the learned Company Judge on 17 December 2018 in Report Nos.24, 42 and 46 in C.A.No. 542 of 2016 in C.P.No.4 of 2014. C.A.No.542 of 2016 was filed under Sections 391 and 392 of the 1956 by Respondent No.2 – Apple Suit Owners Welfare Association for a direction to Respondent No.1 – the Administrator, to take immediate steps to dispose of certain apartments mentioned in the Company Application. The Administrator filed Report Nos.24 and 42 in C.A.No.542 of 2016 for orders seeking permission and direction to conduct the sale of 18 flats. Report No.46 in C.A.No.542 of 2016 ₹

prayed for release of an amount of 1 Crore from the amount available in the account of the Administrator as loan to the Special Purpose Vehicle for completion of the project 'Apple Suit' with a condition for realization of the amount advanced on priority basis out of the sale proceeds of 18 unsold apartments. The learned Company Judge disposed of the Reports and directed the Administrator to take steps to sell 18 flats in the project 'Apple Suit' and realize the funds for completion of the construction of the project. The learned ₹

Company Judge also directed that an amount of 1 Crore from the amount available in the account of the Administrator upon sale of the 18 unsold apartments will be given as a loan to the Special Purpose Vehicle for completion of the construction of the project 'Apple Suit'. Challenging this order, the Appellant – Bank has filed the present appeal on 5 March 2019.

2. Heard Mr.Vishnu S. Arikkattil, learned counsel representing Ms.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant – Bank, Mr.Vinod Madhavan, Administrator / Advocate appointed by the Court and Mr.Jacob Mathew Manalil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant – Bank submitted that the Bank has sanctioned a project loan of a substantial amount for the construction of the project, for which various landed properties and the apartments were taken as security. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Company Judge, if not interfered with, will prejudice the financial interests of the Appellant – Bank which had advanced the loan. It is also contended that the implications of the sale of flats and disbursal of the loan have not taken care of the legitimate financial interests of the Appellant – Bank.

4. The Administrator submits that there was no interim order during the pendency of the appeal and that the flats have been sold to ₹

the tune of 1 Crore and that the project is now complete. The Administrator and the learned counsel for the Apple Suit Owners Welfare Association submit that nothing survives in this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant – Bank submitted that the issue relates to the financial interests of the Appellant – Bank, and though it is correct that the sale has taken place and the loan is also advanced, the implications of the sale on the rights of the Appellant – Bank will have to be considered even assuming that the sale cannot be reversed now.

6. Having gone through the impugned order, though the learned Company Judge has permitted the sale of flats, it is evident from the facts and circumstances and with the object of proceeding further with the project and in the interest of the apartment owners, that the impugned order has not finally concluded the rights of Appellant – Bank and the proceedings are pending in that regard. Therefore, the issue regarding the implications of the sale of flats and rights of the Appellant – Bank will have to be