J U D G M E N T

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

1.The present set of two appeals have been filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’ in short) arising out of the Order dated 04.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court – V) in I.A No. 1674 of 2024 in CP (IB) No. 106/MB/2022. By the said impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed I.A No. 1674 of 2024 filed by the Appellant - Amisha In Sky Creation Pvt. Ltd. (‘Amisha’ in short) and rejected the claim filed by them, aggrieved by which order rejecting their claim, Company Appeal No. 578 of 2025 has been preferred by Amisha. The other appeal vide Company Appeal No. 640 of 2025 has been preferred by Resolution Professional (‘RP’ in short) challenging the impugned order for according the status of secured financial creditor to Amisha.

2. Coming to the salient facts of the case which are relevant to be noticed for consideration of both the appeals at hand, it is noted that the Corporate Debtor – M/s Setubandhan Infrastructure Ltd. (formerly known as “Prakash Constrowell Ltd”) was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ in short). The Corporate Debtor before being admitted into the CIRP had obtained loan facility from State Bank of India (‘SBI’ in short) and for this purpose approached Amisha for mortgaging its properties in favour of the Corporate Debtor with the SBI. On 02.06.2016, the Board of Amisha had authorised Mr. Vishal Mukesh Ahuja, erstwhile Director of Amisha to negotiate and sign a Deed of Agreement with the Corporate Debtor for advancing a loan by way of mortgage of properties with SBI. On 09.08.2016, a notarised Deed of Agreement was executed between Amisha and the Corporate Debtor by which agreement, the Corporate Debtor had agreed to repay the loan to SBI within three years and have the mortgage property of the Amisha released back to them. On 28.03.2017, Amisha had signed a corporate guarantee with SBI mortgaging its properties in favour of the Corporate Debtor and deposited the title deed of the property with the Financial Creditor to secure the loan availed by the Corporate Debtor. In March 2018, Amisha had informed the Corporate Debtor exercising its right to withdraw the properties mortgaged in favour of the Corporate Debtor following which the Corporate Debtor had addressed a letter on 14.03.2018 to SBI for releasing the property to Amisha. However, no release of the property actually took place. Amisha had again requested the Corporate Debtor to get the properties released from SBI in March, 2019. Eventually, on expiration of the Deed of Agreement, Amisha again addressed a letter on 18.08.2019 calling upon the Corporate Debtor to abide by the terms of the above agreement. In response, the Corporate Debtor on 16.10.2019 denied and disputed the execution of the Deed of Agreement on the ground that the same was signed by a Director of the Corporate Debtor without any authority from the Board of Directors. Thereafter, the matter was not followed up further by Amisha in the seeking release of their property from the Corporate Debtor which subsequently was admitted into CIRP on 28.11.2022. On the appointment of IRP, claims were invited on 30.11.2022, basis which the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’ in short) was constituted on 21.12.2022. Amisha filed its claim with the RP on 09.01.2023. The claim of Amisha was rejected by the RP on 18.05.2023. The resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant was approved by the CoC on 26.12.2023. Amisha filed I.A No. 1674 of 2024 before the Adjudicating Authority on 08.04.2025 challenging the rejection of their claim as unsecured financial creditor by the RP. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the I.A No. 1674 of 2024 on 04.03.2025. However, while dismissing I.A No. 1674 of 2024 and rejecting the claim of Amisha, the Adjudicating Authori