IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH – I, HYDERABAD In CP (IB) No. 65/7/HDB/2023 (Under section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF M/s VERSATILE PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED Between:

Union Bank of India ...Applicant Versus

1) Canara Bank

2) Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor …Respondents Date of Order: 11.08.2025 Coram:

Shri. Rammurti Kushawaha, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Shri. Man Mohan Gupta, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Appearance:

For Applicant : PBA Srinivasan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Dishit Bhattacharjee, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/

Resolution Professional (RP) : JVL Bharathi, Advocate : K M K Prasad, RP PER: BENCH

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IBC’), read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCLT Rules’). The applicant herein, a member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), has instituted the present application against another CoC member/respondent no.1 and the Resolution Professional/ respondent no. 2, seeking the following reliefs;

a. Direct the Respondent no. 1 and 2 to consider the charge of Applicant on the subject matter property of the corporate debtor;

and b. Direct the respondent no. 2 to keep the voting on approval of resolution plan in abeyance till the adjudication of the present application.

1) Brief of the averment of the application:

1.1. The erstwhile Andhra Bank (now merged with Union Bank of India ‘Applicant herein’) sanctioned term loan and working capital limits to M/s Versatile Pharma Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘corporate debtor’) on the existing land and buildings situated at "Plot No.92, IDA Cheraplly having land admeasuring 4811 sq. yds. and factory buildings consisting of G plus two floors (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject property’). The said subject property is mortgaged to the respondent no. 1.

The applicant in three tranches sanctioned the following amounts to the corporate debtor;

- Rs. 8.42 crores sanctioned on 28.08.2012 towards interiors and machinery, secured by a pari-passu charge on the subject property along with hypothecation of machinery.

- Rs. 2.82 crores sanctioned on the same date for working capital, secured on surplus value of primary and other collateral securities.

- Rs. 5.90 crores sanctioned on 16.07.2014, also secured on surplus value of the above securities.

1.2. It is stated that the erstwhile Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank/respondent no. 1), vide letter dated 03.10.2012, agreed to the creation of a pari-passu charge in favour of the applicant and instructed that the charge be reflected in the Registrar of Companies (RoC) records. Accordingly, the Applicant filed Form 8 dated 23.02.2013, creating charge over the subject property.

1.3. However, the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 20.02.2015 objected to the effectiveness of pari-passu charge, citing non-fulfilment of conditions stipulated in their earlier letter. The Applicant responded on 21.02.2015, confirming ceding of pari-passu charge on three collateral securities of the Corporate Debtor. Further confirmations were also issued on 30.01.2017 and 12.05.2017. During a joint lenders' meeting on 06.02.2017, Respondent No.1 claimed non-receipt of the Applicant’s response to their earlier letter. The Applicant reiterated its stand by submitting the prior correspondence and confirmation letters.

1.4. It is stated that to recovery its due, the applicant filed an original application (OA No. 3676 of 2017) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which was allowed on 09.08.2019 in its favour.

1.5. It is further stated that the Respondent No.1 initiated action under the SARFAESI Act and vide email dated 29.08.2020, sought the Applicant’s liabilities and CERSAI details for inclusion in the sale notice. The Applicant responded with outstanding