The Tribunal ruled that an entity without a valid lease or exclusive charge over property cannot challenge eviction proceedings in insolvency matters; possession after lease expiry is deemed unlawful.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial):

IA No.199/2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No.13/2024 (Impleadment Application):

Introduction:

The Petitioner / Bank / Intervenor, has filed IA No. 199 / 2024 (under Rule 11 r/w. Rule 31 of NCLAT Rules, 2016) in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, seeking to `Implead’ in main `Appeal’, as Proposed 2^nd Respondent.

2. It is the plea of the Petitioner / Bank / Proposed 2^nd Respondent, that the details of `Working Capital Facilities’, sanctioned to the `1^st Respondent / Appellant’, is mentioned as under:

Amount Sanctioned:

Term Loan Rs. 24,00,00,000/- SODM Rs. 6,00,00,000/- Bank Guarantee Rs. 1,00,00,000/-

---------------------

Total Rs.31,00,00,000/-

----------------------

Amount Disbursed:

Term Loan Rs. 24,00,00,000/- SODM Rs. 6,00,00,000/- Bank Guarantee Rs. 1,00,00,000/-

---------------------

Total Rs.31,00,00,000/-

----------------------

3. According to the Petitioner / Bank (Proposed 2^nd Respondent in main `Appeal’), the Working Capital Facilities, were sanctioned to the `1^st Respondent / Appellant’, through Letter dated 30.03.2011 (vide Ref. No. RPR/3018/ADV/2011), and that the `1<sup>st</sup> Respondent / Appellant’, had accepted the terms and conditions of the `Sanction Letter’.

Petitioner / Bank’s Submissions:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Bank / Proposed 2^nd Respondent, submits that the `1<sup>st</sup> Respondent / Appellant’, had entered into a `Composite Hypothecation Agreement’, on 31.03.2011, wherein, they had acknowledged the aforesaid `Loan Liability’, and in consideration of the `Credit Facilities’, the `1<sup>st</sup> Respondent / Appellant’, had created an `Equitable Mortgage’, over the `Superstructure’, by way of `Deposit of Title Deeds of Immovable Properties’, on the `Land’, standing, in the name of `M/s. Sainath Estate Private Limited’ (under `Liquidation’), backed by `Corporate Guarantee’.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Bank, points out that the `1<sup>st</sup> Respondent / Corporate Debtor’ and the `Corporate Guarantor’, had executed the `Loan Security Documents’, in confirmation of the `Loan Liability’, which runs as follows:

a). `Composite Hypothecation Agreement’, dated 31.03.2011.

b). `Guarantee Agreement’, being executed by Shri. Kokkirala Preemsagar Rao, Smt. Kokkirala Surekha and Shri. S. Satyanarayana Rao dated 31.03.2011.

c) Corporate Guarantee, as executed by M/s. Sainath Estate Private Limited dated 31.03.2011.

d) Confirmation of Creation of second / subsequent equitable mortgage, executed by M/s. Sainath Estate Private Limited dated 31.03.2011.

e) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 01.03.2017.

f) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 17.12.2019.

g) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 17.06.2021.

h) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 20.01.2022.

i) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 05.12.2023.

j) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 09.12.2023.

6. It is the stand of the Petitioner / Ba