NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [Arising out of Order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court – IV), in C.P. (IB)
No.317/ND/2025]
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rajesh Kaimal Suspended Director of Equinox India Developments Ltd. …Appellant (Now known as Embassy Developments Ltd.)
Versus Prabhat Ranjan Singh Resolution Professional of Equinox India Developments Ltd.
(Formerly known as Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd.) & Anr. …Respondents Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Diwevdi, Mr. Arun Kathpalia and Mr.
Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Mr. Shubham Madaan, Mr. Ujjwala Gupta, Mr. Eklavya Diwevedi and Mohd. Yasir, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Abhinav Vashist, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anju Jain, Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Ms. Rifat Tohid and Ms.
Abhilasa, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate for R-1/RP.
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1.This appeal by a suspended director of the corporate debtor has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court – IV) admitting a Section 7 application (C.P. (IB) No. 317/ND/2025) filed by the Canara Bank. Appellant aggrieved by the said order has come up in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are:
i. A Rupee Term Loan of Rs. 100 crore was sanctioned by the financial creditor to Principal Borrower- Indiabulls Realtech Ltd., now M/s. Simar Thermal Power Limited on 26.02.2010, Term Loan of cost overrun of Rs.15.57 crore dated 26.03.2014 and Rs.28.83 crore dated 30.08.2016 was also extended totalling to Rs.144.4 crore.
ii. A corporate guarantee dated 30.06.2010 was extended by India Bulls Real Estate Limited (subsequently M/s. Equinox Development Ltd., the corporate debtor) and India Bulls Power Limited who subsequently became Rattan India Enterprises Limited. A guarantee was extended to the Financial Facilities extended by virtue of Facility Agreement dated 30.06.2010. After the aforesaid guarantee dated 30.06.2010, a scheme of arrangement was approved by the Delhi High Court, whereas, the power business of the corporate debtor was demerged and transferred to Rattan India Enterprises Limited.
iii. The corporate guarantee was executed on 11.01.2012 between Rattan India Enterprises Ltd., Rattan India Power Ltd. and IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. substituting the earlier guarantee and releasing the corporate debtor from its obligation to infuse equity share capital in the project being developed by principal borrower.
iv. The cost overrun undertaking was executed by corporate debtor in favour of financial creditor on 21.11.2016. Loan account of principal borrower were classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.09.2017. v. On 30.09.2020, financial creditor issued a recall notice to the principal borrower, corporate debtor and Rattan India Power Ltd. invoking the alleged corporate guarantee dated 30.06.2010 and demanding payment of Rs.202,03,39,436/- as on 31.07.2020. The notice was also issued to corporate guarantor namely M/s. India Bulls Real Estate Limited and M/s. Rattan India Power Ltd.
vi. OA No. 72/2021 was filed by financial creditor before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the principal borrower as well as corporate debtor and M/s. Rattan India Power Ltd.
vii. A notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 09.06.2021 was also issued by the financial creditor to principal borrower and corporate guarantors. Principal borrower replied to 13(2) notice on 09.08.2021. Principal borrower also submitted an One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal on 20.09.2021.
viii. An application under Section 7 was filed by Canara Bank against the corporate debtor, C.P. (IB) No.317/2025 giving details of Financial Facilities of Rs.144.40 crore and the total amount due of Rs.202,03,39,436/- as on 31.07.2020. As on 30.12.2024, total amount of Rs.372,35,67,407/- was mentioned. Declaration of NPA as principal borrower dated 28.09.2017 and recall notice dated 30.09.2020 was pleaded in the Section 7 application. The notice was issued by the adjudicating authority. Corporate debtor filed its reply to the Section 7 application. Corporate debtor in its reply raised preliminary objections to the application. It was pleaded that recall notice having been issued on 30.09.2020 for recalling the loan and directing the payment to be made within three days, the application is barred by Section 10A.
ix. It was further pleaded that Guarantee Deed dated 30.06.2010 and cost overrun Deed of Undertaking dated 21.11.2016 is not contract of guarantee. It was pleaded that in the application, Bank has suppressed the material facts that the Guarantee dated 30.06.2010 was subsequently by subsequent Guarantee Deed dated 11.01.2012, the corporate debtor as guarantor was discharged and the said subsequent guarantee dated
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.