Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 01 NCLAT CK 1905

State Bank of India vs L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 28 January 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) · Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2206 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8266, 8267, 8268 of

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 313 words

28.01.2025: This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 by which an application bearing IB No. 612/ND/2022 filed by SBI (Appellant herein) under Section 7 of the Code for the resolution of an amount of Rs. 203,81,38,395.47/- against M/s LR Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Guarantor/CD) has been dismissed.

2.

This application was dismissed by the Tribunal while allowing the application filed by the Corporate Debtor under Section 65 of the Code holding that the Bank is in collusion with the borrower to go after the Corporate Debtor.

3.

In the reply filed by Respondent No. 1, it has been submitted that in a proceeding before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 963 of 2024, the Hon’ble Court has observed that “admittedly, the debt of M/s PP Jewellers, Delhi has been discharged and the guarantees as well as the title deeds furnished by M/s LR Builders Pvt. Ltd. is to be released/returned. Consequently, this Court directs the State Bank of India to return/release the guarantees and title documents furnished by M/s LR Builders Pvt. Ltd.”

4.

Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2024, not only M/s PP Jewellers has been discharged from its debt because the amount of OTS has been paid to the SBI but also the title deeds furnished by the Respondent have been returned / released. He has, therefore, submitted that no cause of action survives in favour of the Appellant/Applicant under Section 7 to pursue the same litigation before any court of law. He has thus requested that in view of the above development/factual situation, the present appeal may be dismissed as infructuous.

5.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Adv. appearing on behalf of the Appellant/SBI has not raised any objection in this regard.

6.

In view thereof, the present appeal is hereby dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. No costs.