IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025

[Arising under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 against the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed
by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of
2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India …Appellant

VERSUS

Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ...Respondents

PAPER-BOOK
[FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE]

VOLUME – I
(PAGE 1 TO 246)

Filed on: 01.03.2025 RAVI RAGHUNATH,

New Delhi RATHINA MARAVARMAN,
ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT,
C-9, Lower Ground Floor, Jangpura
Extension, New Delhi – 110014
+91-9566061293
[email protected]
[email protected]
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025

[Arising under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 against the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed
by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of
2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India …Appellant

VERSUS

Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ...Respondents

MASTER INDEX
VOLUME - I

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Memo of Parties 1-3

2. Synopsis and List of Dates and Events 4-18

3. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 19-26

Application on behalf of the Appellant /
Applicant under the proviso to Section
61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 read with rule 31 of the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Rules, 2016 seeking condonation of delay
in filing the Appeal

4. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 27-36

Application on behalf of the Appellant /
Applicant under Rule 31 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules,
2016 and Section 151, CPC seeking ad-
interim ex-parte reliefs
5. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 37-43
Application on behalf of Appellant /
Applicant under rule 11 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules,
2016 seeking for exemption from filing
typed copy of annexures / documents and to
permit filing dim / illegible / insufficient
margin annexures / documents

6. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 44-49

Application on behalf of Appellant /
Applicant under rule 11 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules,
2016 seeking permission to place
subsequent events and documents on record

7. Memorandum of Appeal under Section 61 50-114

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016, along with Affidavit

8. ANNEXURE – A/1 115-150

Certified Copy of the Impugned Order
dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A.
No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)
3794/MB/C-III/2019

9. ANNEXURE – A/2 151-165

Copy of the Valuation Report of M/s. SJA
Industrial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. dated
08.11.2012

10. ANNEXURE – A/3 166-170

Copy of the Valuation Report of M/s
V.S.Modi Associates dated 22.02.2013
11. ANNEXURE – A/4 171-173
Copy of the list of flats/tenements for which
NOCs have been issued by the Appellant
Bank

12. ANNEXURE – A/5 174-235

Copy of the Information Memorandum
prepared by the Respondent No.1

13. ANNEXURE – A/6 236-246

Copy of the Legal Opinion dated
10.09.2022 of M/s. MDP Partners

VOLUME - II

14. ANNEXURE – A/7 247-338

Copy of the Resolution Plan dated
15.02.2023 of the Respondent No.2

15. ANNEXURE – A/8 339-354

Copy of the Addendum to the Resolution
Plan dated 13.03.2023 of the Respondent
No.2

16. ANNEXURE – A/9 355-356

Copy of the e-mail dated 28.03.2023 issued
by the Appellant Bank

17. ANNEXURE – A/10 357-359

Copy of the e-mail dated 29.03.2023 issued
by the Resolution Professional

18. ANNEXURE – A/11 360-362

Copy of the e-mail dated 29.03.2023 issued
by the valuers
19. ANNEXURE – A/12 363-365
Copy of the letter dated 31.03.2023 issued
by the valuers

20. ANNEXURE – A/13 366-434

Copy of the I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P.
No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019 dated
28.04.2023 and filed on 29.04.2023 by the
Appellant Bank before the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority, Mumbai

21. ANNEXURE – A/14 (COLLY) 435-436

Copy of the plan for Project Swarajya and
the Google Earth image

VOLUME - III

22. ANNEXURE – A/15 (COLLY) 437-679

Copy of the Reply dated NIL July 2023
filed by the Respondent No.1 alongwith the
documents annexed with the same

23. ANNEXURE – A/16 (COLLY) 680-717

Copy of the Reply dated 25.08.2023 filed
by the Respondent No.11 alongwith the
documents annexed with the same
(...continued in Vol. IV)

VOLUME - IV

24. ANNEXURE – A/16 (COLLY) 718-981

Copy of the Reply dated 25.08.2023 filed
by the Respondent No.11 alongwith the
documents annexed with the same
(...continued in Vol. V)
 VOLUME - V

25. ANNEXURE – A/16 (COLLY) 982-1203

Copy of the Reply dated 25.08.2023 filed
by the Respondent No.11 alongwith the
documents annexed with the same

26. ANNEXURE – A/17 (COLLY) 1204-1256

Copy of the Reply dated 28.08.2023 filed
by the Respondent No.12 alongwith the
documents annexed with the same
(...continued in Vol. VI)

VOLUME - VI

27. ANNEXURE – A/17 (COLLY) 1257-1402

Copy of the Reply dated 28.08.2023 filed
by the Respondent No.12

28. ANNEXURE – A/18 (COLLY) 1403-1421

Copy of the Additional Affidavit dated
10.04.2024 filed by the Respondent No.12
alongwith the documents annexed with the
same

29. ANNEXURE – A/19 1422-1428

Copy of the Additional Affidavit dated
13.05.2024 filed by the Appellant

30. ANNEXURE – A/20 1429

Copy of the plan approved and certified by
KDMC

31. ANNEXURE – A/21 1430-1474

Copy of the Valuation Report dated
13.05.2024 filed by the Respondent No.1
 32. ANNEXURE – A/22 1475
Copy of the application for certified copy
dated 18.02.2025 submitted by the
Appellant

33. ANNEXURE – A/23 1476-1492

Copy of the Minutes of the 10th Meeting of
the Committee of Creditors dated
30.01.2025

34. ANNEXURE – A/24 1493-1499

Copy of the Voting Results dated
30.01.2025

35. Vakalatnama and Copy of Power of 1500-1512

Attorney

36. Caveat Clearance 1513

37. Proof of Service 1514

38. Proof of filing and Court Fees 1515-1519

39. Undertaking 1520

Filed on: 01.03.2025 RAVI RAGHUNATH,

New Delhi RATHINA MARAVARMAN,
ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT,
C-9, Lower Ground Floor, Jangpura
Extension, New Delhi – 110014
+91-9566061293
[email protected]
[email protected]
 INDEX
VOLUME - I

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Memo of Parties 1-3

2. Synopsis and List of Dates and Events 4-18

3. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 19-26

Application on behalf of the Appellant /
Applicant under the proviso to Section
61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 read with rule 31 of the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Rules, 2016 seeking condonation of delay
in filing the Appeal

4. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 27-36

Application on behalf of the Appellant /
Applicant under Rule 31 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules,
2016 and Section 151, CPC seeking ad-
interim ex-parte reliefs

5. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 37-43

Application on behalf of Appellant /
Applicant under rule 11 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules,
2016 seeking for exemption from filing
typed copy of annexures / documents and to
permit filing dim / illegible / insufficient
margin annexures / documents

6. I.A. NO. _________________ of 2025 44-49

Application on behalf of Appellant /
Applicant under rule 11 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules,
2016 seeking permission to place
subsequent events and documents on record

7. Memorandum of Appeal under Appeal 50-114

under Section 61 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, along with
Affidavit
 8. ANNEXURE – A/1 115-150
Certified Copy of the Impugned Order
dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A.
No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)
3794/MB/C-III/2019

9. ANNEXURE – A/2 151-165

Copy of the Valuation Report of M/s. SJA
Industrial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. dated
08.11.2012

10. ANNEXURE – A/3 166-170

Copy of the Valuation Report of M/s
V.S.Modi Associates dated 22.02.2013

11. ANNEXURE – A/4 171-173

Copy of the list of flats/tenements for which
NOCs have been issued by the Appellant
Bank

12. ANNEXURE – A/5 174-235

Copy of the Information Memorandum
prepared by the Respondent No.2

13. ANNEXURE – A/6 236-246

Copy of the Legal Opinion dated
10.09.2022 of M/s. MDP Partners

Filed on: 01.03.2025 RAVI RAGHUNATH,

New Delhi RATHINA MARAVARMAN,
ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT,
C-9, Lower Ground Floor, Jangpura
Extension, New Delhi – 110014
+91-9566061293
[email protected]
[email protected]
 1

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025

MEMO OF PARTIES

Central Bank of India

Stressed Assets Management Branch-I,
having office at:
346, Standard Building, Ground Floor,
Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400023 …Appellant

VERSUS

1. Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha

Resolution Professional of
Neptune Developers Limited
Having office at:
2B/804, Dreams Complex, LBS Marg,
Bhandup (West), Mumbai – 400078
E-mail: [email protected]

2. Shree Naman Developers Pvt Ltd

Having office at:
Naman Centre, C-31, G Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400051
E-mail: [email protected]

3. Asset Care & Reconstruction

Enterprise Limited (ACRE)
Having office at:
2nd floor, Mohandev Building, 13, Tolstoy
Marg, New Delhi – 110001
E-mail: [email protected]

4. Catalyst Trusteeship Limited

Having office at:
GDA House, First Floor, Plot No. 85, S. No.
94 & 95, Bhusari Colony (Right),
Kothurd, Pune – 411038
E-mail: [email protected]
 2

5. Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt Ltd.,

(Lodha Finserv Private Limited)
Having office at:
7th floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills, N.M.
Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai– 400011
E-mail: [email protected]

6. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Company Limited (EARC)
Having office at:
Edelweiss House, OFF C.S.T. Road,
Kalina, Mumbai – 400098
E-mail: [email protected]

7. Axis Bank Limited

Having office at:
Axis House, Stressed Assets Group, 7th
floor, C-2, Wadia International Centre,
P.B.Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025
E-mail: [email protected]

8. Mangal Royal Jewels Private Limited

Having office at:
29C, Shyam Kamal Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Agarwal Market, M.G. Road,
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400 057
E-mail: [email protected]
9. Duddu Fin-lease Limited
Having office at:
A-24, Grd Floor, Pandya Cottage, Shree
Ji Kiran, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai – 400 057
E-mail: [email protected]

10. Class of Creditors - Home Buyers

Represented by : Mr. Manish Jaju
D 502 Neelkanth Business Park,
Vidyavihar, Mumbai - 400 086
E-mail: [email protected]

11. Mr. Kunal Kantilal Vikamsey

Having Address at:
412, Maker Chambers No. 5, Plot No. 221,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021
E-mail: [email protected]
 3

12. M/s Adroit Appraisers and Research Pvt. Ltd.

Having office at:
Office No. 309, Tower - B, ATS Bouquet
Sector 132, Noida, U.P. – 201304
E-mail: [email protected]

13. EKA Life Limited

Having address at:
6th Peninsula Tower A, Peninsula
Corporate Park, Lower Parel (W),
Mumbai - 400 013
E-mail: [email protected]

14. Esgee Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Having address at:
Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound
Level 16, D Wing Tower Lower Parel,
Mumbai- 400 013
E-mail: [email protected]
…Respondents

THROUGH

Filed on: 01.03.2025 RAVI RAGHUNATH,

New Delhi RATHINA MARAVARMAN,
ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT,
C-9, Lower Ground Floor, Jangpura
Extension, New Delhi – 110014
+91-9566061293
[email protected]
[email protected]
 4

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025

[Arising under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016 against the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the
Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P.
No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India …Appellant

Versus
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ...Respondents

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The present Appeal is being filed under Section 61 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (the “Code”) against the order

dated 21.01.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Hon’ble National

Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench Court - III (“Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai”) in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)

3794/MB/C-III/2019.

By the Impugned Order, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has partly

allowed the Appellant’s application and erroneously rejected certain

prayers, and erroneously disposed of the Appellant’s application.

 5

The Appellant most respectfully submits that:

1. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in only “partly

allowing” prayer “c” of the I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)

3794/MB/C-III/2019 in as much the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,

Mumbai failed to set aside the valuations conducted by the

Respondents No.11 and 12 in so far as the Project Swarajya was

concerned. Further, by giving numerous findings/observations

regarding the valuations conducted by the Respondents No.11 and

12, the Appellant apprehends that the newly appointed Valuer may

find his fresh valuation exercise curtailed by the Impugned Order.

2. It is most respectfully and humbly submitted that the Appellant’s

application ought to have been kept pending in order to pass

consequential directions based on the exercise to be carried out by

the newly appointed Valuer.

3. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in holding that there

is no material irregularity in the preparation of the Information

Memorandum. In the present case, the information memorandum

was not prepared with full and correct details of assets/liabilities of

the Corporate Debtor and there are numerous errors, material

irregularities and illegalities pointed out by the Appellant which go

to the very root of the matter, and vitiates the Information

Memorandum prepared in the present case.

 6

4. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai after finding that the

Information Memorandum states that Sector 2 of Swarajya Project

is only partially completed but no details of the partially constructed

units is given, however, thereafter contradictorily and erroneously

holds that there is no material irregularity on the part of the

Resolution Professional in preparing the Information

Memorandum.

5. The Resolution Professional is not a mere rubber stamping

authority, but is required to exercise proper due diligence and

undertake proper verification of the assets/liabilities while

preparing the Information Memorandum. The Information

Memorandum (IM) is a critical document during CIRP which gives

the position regarding the assets/liabilities, finances, creditors,

litigations etc of the Corporate Debtor, and preparation of the same

is one of the primary duties of the Resolution Professional as per

section 25(2)(g) of the Code, and the resolution plan is submitted

on the basis of the Information Memorandum.

6. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erroneously relied upon

the disclaimer provided in the Information Memorandum. It is

submitted that the purported disclaimer cannot permit the

Resolution Professional to violate the provisions of the Code and

the Regulations, and it is further submitted that the purported

 7

disclaimer cannot efface the errors, irregularities and illegalities in

the Information Memorandum in the present case.

7. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in holding that the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the Respondent No.2

herein to modify their plan, on receipt of fresh valuation reports and

for fresh voting to be ordered thereafter. It is submitted that the

entire resolution plan of the Respondent No.2 is assessed based on

illegal and erroneous information memorandum and valuations, and

the resolution plan was incorrectly approved by the CoC without all

the relevant information and contrary to the provisions of the Code

and Regulations.

8. In the present case, different approaches have been adopted by both

Valuers with regard to the Barter flats as also KDMC flats. Thus,

there is no common method of valuation on the same assets as also

there is no uniform approach adopted by both Valuers. Moreover,

there is no rationale behind the methods adopted by both CIRP

Valuers. Hence, the liquidation value as also fair value arrived at is

erroneous.

9. Both the Valuers evaluated the properties differently by adopting

different methods and further failing to value the actual assets which

have given rise to inaccurate and incorrect valuation (ultimately

leading to undervaluation of project assets) due to which proper and

legally permissible Resolution plans have not come forward.

 8

The Impugned Order thus warrants interference by this

Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal and hence the present Appeal.

THROUGH

Filed on: 01.03.2025 RAVI RAGHUNATH,

New Delhi RATHINA MARAVARMAN,
ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT,
C-9, Lower Ground Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
+91-9566061293
[email protected]
[email protected]
 9

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE PARTICULARS

The Appellant is the Central Bank of India, a body

Corporate incorporated under the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.

The Appellant has 11.83% of voting share as a member

of the COC of the Corporate Debtor - M/s. Neptune

Developers Private Limited.

M/s. Neptune Developers Private Limited (“Corporate

Debtor”) was a company engaged in real estate

development like residential/retail and commercial

properties. The Respondent No. 1 is the Resolution

Professional of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent

No. 2 is the successful resolution applicant whose

resolution plan is pending consideration before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai. The Respondents No.

3 to 10 are the members of the Committee of Creditors

(“CoC”). The Respondents No. 11 and 12 are the valuers

appointed during the CIRP (“CIRP Valuers”). The

Respondent 13 and 14 are the unsuccessful resolution

applicants.
 10

08.11.2012 Before the disbursal of the loan amount, the Appellant

22.02.2013 Bank had taken valuation of the project site/structures

thereto and Valuation Reports were given by M/s. SJA

Industrial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. dated 08.11.2012 and

M/s V.S. Modi Associates dated 22.02.2013.

18.02.2013 The Corporate Debtor had approached the Appellant

Bank for construction finance to be sanctioned to the

extent of Rs. 100 Crores for development of their project

by name “Neptune Swarajya at Ambivali – Kalyan”.

The Appellant Bank has sanctioned Term loan for

construction vide Sanction letter dated 18.02.2013. The

Appellant bank is the exclusive charge holder to the said

Project Land measuring 1042 gunthe i.e. 26.05 acres at

Village Ambivali, Tal. Kalyan and structures

constructed thereto.

30.03.2013 The Corporate Debtor created Indenture of Mortgage

dated 30.03.2013 in favour of Axis Trustees Service Ltd.

(on behalf of Appellant Bank).

When the Appellant Bank had disbursed the loan, it was

on the understanding that as and when the Corporate

Debtor is selling the constructed flat/tenement they will

 11

approach the Appellant Bank for NOCs. Accordingly,

the Corporate Debtor approached the Appellant Bank for

NOCs for 118 number of tenements/flats on various

dates and Appellant Bank has issued the same.

31.03.2015 While initially the Corporate Debtor was repaying the

loan amount however they later failed to service the loan

account due to which it was declared as NPA on

31.03.2015. Consequently, the Appellant Bank filed

Application under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and

Bankruptcy Act 1993 before the Ld. Debts Recovery

Tribunal (O.A. No. 236 of 2020) against the Corporate

Debtor and its guarantors/mortgagors for recovery of

their outstanding to the extent of Rs.172.29 Crores as

also for enforcement of their security interest.

22.09.2017 The Appellant Bank also initiated action under

SARFAESI Act against the secured assets by issuance

of notice dated 22.09.2017 under Section 13(2) of the

SARFAESI Act, 2002. From 22.09.2017 (the date of

issuance of SARFAESI notice) the Corporate Debtor has

lost their rights on the project assets / constructed Units

to enter into Agreement for Sale or to execute any Sale

Deed. Further the entire sale proceeds realized by

 12

Corporate Debtor after 22.09.2017 shall also remain

under attachment as the Bank is having first charge on

all receivables from Ambivali project of Corporate

Debtor. Thus in all manner the rights/interest/title of the

Appellant Bank as the exclusive mortgage/charge holder

have been prejudiced to the greater extent by the acts of

commissions and commissions of the Resolution

Professional, Valuers as also the Resolution Applicant.

16.07.2021 The Appellant filed CP No. 3794/IBC/MB/2019

(“Insolvency Petition”) under Section 7 of the Code

against the Corporate Debtor for a debt and default of

INR 185,53,24,319/- as on 13.08.2019. The Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai admitted the

Insolvency Petition vide an order dated 16.07.2021, and

hence Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

(“CIRP”) commenced in respect of the Corporate

Debtor.

During CIRP process the Resolution Professional

(Respondent No.2) valued the assets of the Corporate

Debtor through two Valuers by name (i) Mr. Kunal

Kantilal Vikamsey (in short “Mr. Kunal”) & (ii) M/s

Adroit Appraisers and Research Private Limited (in

 13

short “M/s Adroit”), being the Respondents No. 11 and

12 herein.

The Respondent No.1 prepared an Information

Memorandum during the CIRP.

15.02.2023 The Respondent No.2 submitted a resolution plan dated

15.02.2023.

13.03.2023 The Respondent No.2 submitted an Addendum to the

Resolution Plan dated 13.03.2023.

28.03.2023 During the CIRP, the Appellant was informed by the

29.03.2023 Resolution Professional (through CIRP Valuers) that

31.03.2023 11.60 acres of project land have been utilized for

construction and the balance of 14.60 Acres have all

been consumed for other purposes such as MSEB,

reservation, amenities, road etc. The Appellant Bank in

this regard raised various grievances to the Resolution

Professional vide a letter dated 28.03.2023 and the latter

replied to the same with the help of CIRP Valuers vide

a letter dated 29.03.2023. The Appellant Bank also

issued a detailed letter dated 31.03.2023 to the

Resolution Professional wherein numerous issues /

 14

objections have been raised with regard to Resolution

Plan (set out hereinbelow).

18.03.2023 During the CIRP, three Resolution Plans were received

to from EKA Life Limited, Esgee Real Estate Developers

31.03.2023 Pvt. Ltd. and Naman Developers Pvt. Ltd. The said

Resolution Plans have been modified from time to time

and certain clarifications have also been added by the

respective Resolution Applicants. In the 9th COC

meeting held on 18.03.2023, all three Resolution Plans

were put up for voting (along with clarifications).

Initially e-voting was fixed between 20.03.2023 to

27.03.2023. Thereafter e-voting was extended till

31.03.2023 and the resolution plan was approved with

85.35% votes in favour and the Appellant did not vote.

The Resolution Professional filed an interlocutory

application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan

which is presently pending.

29.04.2023 Appellant Bank filed I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No.

(IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019 before the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai praying for the following reliefs:

 15

a) That all Resolution Applicants inter alia

the successful Resolution Applicant

(Respondent No. 2 herein) be directed to

modify their Plan on receipt of fresh

valuation reports and fresh voting be

ordered thereafter.

b) That Resolution Professional (Respondent

No. 1 herein) be directed to take necessary

steps and include proper assets of the CD

to be valued at Project Swarajya.

c) That the valuation conducted by Mr.

Kunal Kantilal Vikamsey and M/s Adroit

Appraisers and Research Pvt. Ltd. be set

aside as the same is fundamentally flawed

and against the requirements of

Bankruptcy Code and Regulations framed

therewith.

d) That direction be issued to Resolution

Professional to carry out a fresh valuation

of Project Swarajya exclusively

mortgaged with Applicant Bank.

e) That direction be issued to Respondent

Nos. 11 and 12 being the Valuers to

submit the blueprint of the Approved Plan

 16

for Swarajya Project as also the method

by which the Valuation have been carried

over on the vacant land and the status of

Units constructed / yet to be completed in

the Project Swarajya.

f) That pending the hearing and final

disposal of the present Application in the

interest of maximization of assets, the

approval of the Resolution Plan by the

Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority be

deferred;

g) That pending the hearing and final

disposal of the present Application

Respondent No. 1 be restrained from

taking any major steps in CIRP of the CD.

h) That pending the hearing and final

disposal of the present Application the

voting result approving the successful

Resolution Plan be stayed

i) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal

may deem fit and proper.

 17

July 2023 The Respondent No.1, Respondent No.6, Respondent

to No.11 and Respondent No.12 filed their reply to the

May 2024 aforesaid application filed by the Bank. The Respondent

No. 12, the Appellant, and the Respondent No.1 also

filed additional affidavits before the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai. The Appellant also filed a copy of

the Plan approved and certified by KDMC and further a

valuation report dated 13.05.2024 prepared by their

valuer.

23.08.2024 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai was pleased to

reserve orders in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)

3794/MB/C-III/2019.

21.01.2025 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai passed the

Impugned Order.

22.01.2025 The webcopy of the Impugned Order was uploaded on

22.01.2025.

24.01.2025 The 10th Meeting of the Committee of Creditors was

held wherein the CoC inter alia resolved, by a majority

vote, to appoint one Mr. Prashant Pradeep Agarwal

(M/s. Anmol Sekhri Consultants Private Limited) as the

 18

third valuer for determining the fair value and

liquidation value of the Swarajya Project.

18.02.2025 The Appellant applied for the certified copy on

to 18.02.2025 and the same was provided on 21.02.2025

21.02.2025

01.03.2025 Hence the present Appeal.

THROUGH

Filed on: 01.03.2025 RAVI RAGHUNATH,

New Delhi RATHINA MARAVARMAN,
ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT,
C-9, Lower Ground Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
+91-9566061293
[email protected]
[email protected]
 19

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India … Applicant

Versus
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ... Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT /

APPLICANT UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 61(2) OF
THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 READ
WITH RULE 31 OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016 SEEKING
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL

The Appellant / Applicant above named most respectfully states and

submits as follows:

1. RELIEF (S) / PRAYER:

In view of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made

in the present application, the Appellant / Applicant most humbly

prays that this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to:

a) Condone the delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal

against the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of

2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019;

b) pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble

Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

 20

2. BRIEF FACTS AND GROUNDS:

2.1 The present application is being filed by the Appellant / Applicant,

praying for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the present

Appeal against the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by

the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023

in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019.

2.2 The Appellant / Applicant states that the detailed facts leading to

the filing of the present appeal and present application has been

mentioned in the accompanying appeal and the same may be read

as part and parcel of the present application and the same are not

repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

2.3 The Appellant / Applicant states that the impugned order was

passed on 21.01.2025 and uploaded on the website of the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai on 22.01.2025. Therefore, it is

humbly submitted that the date of the pronouncement of the

impugned order and the date of uploading the impugned order may

be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation.

3. BASIS ON WHICH RELIEF IS PRAYED FOR:

3.1 The Appellant / Applicant is based out of Mumbai and after the

order was uploaded, the Appellant / Applicant’s legal team

reviewed the impugned order and took steps to obtain legal advice

regarding the remedies available to the Appellant / Applicant.

After discussions, on 07.02.2025, the Appellant / Applicant was

advised to file an appeal, and the necessary approval for filing the
 21

Appeal was received on 10.02.2025. Thereafter the voluminous

record of pleadings and documents filed by the parties before the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai were sent to the Appellant’s

advocate in New Delhi.

3.2 That in the meanwhile the Appellant applied for the certified copy

on 18.02.2025 and the same was provided on 21.02.2025, and it is

humbly submitted that the period for obtaining the certified copy

i.e., four days may be excluded while computing the period of

limitation.

3.3 While so, the initial draft was received on 18.02.2025 and the same

was reviewed internally by the Appellant Bank and then sent to

their advocate with the necessary clarifications on 21.02.2025 and

certain left out documents were provided on 25.02.2025.

Thereafter, the Appellant / Applicant coordinated with their

Advocate and the necessary pleadings / affidavits could be

executed only on 27.02.2025. Hence there has occasioned a

delay of 9 days in filing the present Appeal calculated from the

date of uploading of the order on 22.01.2025.

3.4 That the calculation of limitation period is tabulated as follows:

DATE PARTICULARS NUMBER OF

DAYS PRAYED
TO BE EXCLUDED

21.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 2 days

and of impugned order and
22.01.2025 date of uploading the
 22

impugned order

18.02.2025 Date of applying for 4 days

to certified copy to date of
21.02.2025 delivery of impugned
(i.e., time take for the
certified copy)

Total 6 days

3.5 That the Appellant / Applicant most respectfully submits that the

delay in filing of the present appeal was neither wilful, nor wanton

but only due to the bonafide reasons and sufficient cause set out

hereinabove. The Appellant / Applicant has to the best of their

efforts been moving with due diligence and the delay was not

intentional. The delay that occurred was not owing to any

negligence or laches on the part of the Appellant / Applicant.

3.6 That the Appellant / Applicant most respectfully submits that the

Appellant / Applicant has a good case on merits, and reasonable

grounds for seeking setting aside of the Impugned Order.

3.7 The present application is made bonafide and in the interest of

justice.

4. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE:

No irreparable harm or prejudice would be caused to the

Respondents / Respondents if the present application is allowed

and the balance of convenience lies clearly in favour of the

Appellant/Applicant.
 27

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India …Appellant

Versus
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ...Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT /

APPLICANT UNDER RULE 31 OF THE NATIONAL
COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016 AND
SECTION 151, CPC SEEKING AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE
INTERIM RELIEFS

The applicant above named states as follows:

1. RELIEF (S) / PRAYER:

In view of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made in

the present application, the Appellant / Applicant most humbly prays

that pending the hearing and disposal of the present Appeal, this

Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to:

a) Grant an ad-interim ex parte order of stay of operation of the

Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P.

No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019, pending the hearing and disposal

of the present Appeal;

 28

b) Direct that the hearing and approval of the Resolution Plan by the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai be deferred, pending the

hearing and disposal of the present Appeal;;

c) Alternatively, grant an ad-interim ex parte order directing that all

further steps taken in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor shall be

subject to the final outcome of the present Appeal, pending the

hearing and disposal of the present Appeal;

d) pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble

Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2. BRIEF FACTS AND GROUNDS:

2.1 The present application is being filed by the Appellant /

Applicant praying for urgent ad-interim ex-parte interim reliefs

in the present Appeal.

2.2 The Appellant / Applicant states that states that the detailed facts

and grounds have been mentioned in the accompanying appeal

and the same may be read as part and parcel of the present

application and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.
 29

3. BASIS ON WHICH RELIEF IS PRAYED FOR:

3.1 The Appellant / Applicant states that they have a strong prima

facie case since:

(i) The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai failed to

appreciate the numerous errors, material irregularities and

illegalities pointed out by the Appellant which go to the

very root of the matter and vitiate the Information

Memorandum prepared in the present case.

(ii) The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai after finding that

the Information Memorandum states that Sector 2 of

Swarajya Project is only partially completed but no details

of the partially constructed units is given, however,

thereafter erroneously holds that there is no material

irregularity on the part of the Resolution Professional in

preparing the Information Memorandum.

(iii) The Resolution Professional is not a mere rubber stamping

authority but is required to exercise proper due diligence

and undertake proper verification of the assets/liabilities

while preparing the Information Memorandum, failing

which the Information Memorandum would be rendered

defective, flawed and vitiated, thereby having

 30

consequential adverse impact on the CIRP of the Corporate

Debtor.

(iv) The Information Memorandum (IM) is a critical document

during CIRP which gives the position regarding the

assets/liabilities, finances, creditors, litigations etc of the

Corporate Debtor and preparation of the same is one of the

primary duties of the Resolution Professional as per section

25(2)(g) of the Code.

(v) The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai failed to

appreciate that the information memorandum was not

prepared with full and correct details of assets/liabilities

(vi) In the present case, different approaches have been adopted

by both Valuers with regard to the Barter flats as also

KDMC flats. Thus, there is no common method of

valuation on the same assets as also there is no uniform

approach adopted by both Valuers. Moreover, there is no

rationale behind the methods adopted by both CIRP

Valuers. Hence, the liquidation value as also market value

arrived at is erroneous. Therefore, the entire exercise has to

be set aside.

(vii) Both the Valuers evaluated the properties differently by

adopting different methods and further failing to value the

 31

actual assets which have given rise to inaccurate and

incorrect valuation (ultimately leading to undervaluation of

project assets) due to which proper and legally permissible

Resolution plans have not come forward.

(viii) The value of the property under construction as also vacant

land having huge value have been totally neglected by both

Valuers. The accuracy of valuation depends on the

knowledge of the Valuer and proper information about

assets provided to him with appropriate method of

valuation put into usage by him.

(ix) The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in only

“partly allowing” prayer “c” of the I.A. No. 2694 of 2023

in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019 in as much the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai failed to set aside the

valuations conducted by the Respondents No.11 and 12 in

so far as the Project Swarajya was concerned.

(x) By failing to set aside the valuations conducted by the

Respondent No.11 and 12, and by giving numerous

findings/observations at paragraphs 60 to 63 of the

Impugned Order, the Appellant apprehends that the newly

appointed Valuer may find his fresh valuation exercise

 32

curtailed by the numerous observations and findings given

by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai.

(xi) The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in only

“partly allowing” the I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No.

(IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019, and it is most respectfully and

humbly submitted that the Appellant’s aforesaid

application ought to have been kept pending in order to

pass consequential directions based on the exercise to be

carried out by the newly appointed Valuer.

3.2 That Appellant / Applicant submits that the Impugned Order if

implemented and if any further steps are taken in the CIRP,

including but not limited to the approval of the resolution plans,

the same would cause irreparable injury and harm to the

Appellant.

3.3 The present application is made bonafide and in the interest of

justice.

4. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE:

The balance of convenience lies clearly in favour of the

Appellant/Applicant, and no irreparable harm or prejudice would be

caused to the Respondents if the ad-interim reliefs as prayed for is

granted to the Appellant / Applicant.

 37

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India …Appellant

Versus
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ...Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT / APPLICANT

UNDER RULE 11 OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016 SEEKING FOR
EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPED COPY OF ANNEXURES /
DOCUMENTS AND TO PERMIT FILING DIM / ILLEGIBLE /
INSUFFICIENT MARGIN ANNEXURES / DOCUMENTS

The Appellant / Applicant above named most respectfully states and

submits as follows:

1. RELIEF (S) / PRAYER:

In view of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made in

the present application, the Appellant / Applicant most humbly prays

that this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to:

a) Exempt the Appellant / Applicant from filing the typed copy of

Annexures / documents (ANNEXURE A/2, ANNEXURE A/3,

ANNEXURE – A/5, ANNEXURE – A/6, ANNEXURE – A/14

(COLLY), ANNEXURE – A/16 (COLLY) and ANNEXURE –

 38

A/20) filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in

I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019, and

to permit the Appellant / Applicant to file dim / illegible /

insufficient margin of the aforesaid Annexures / Documents as

filed by the parties before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,

Mumbai.

b) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Appellate

Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the present case and in the interest of justice.

2. BRIEF FACTS AND GROUNDS:

2.1 The present application is being filed by the Appellant /

Applicant praying for exemption from filing the typed copy of

Annexures / documents, and to permit the Appellant / Applicant

to file dim / illegible / insufficient margin Annexures /

Documents.

2.2 The Appellant / Applicant state that the detailed facts leading to

the filing of the present appeal and present application has been

mentioned in the accompanying appeal and the same may be

read as part and parcel of the present application and the same

are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

 39

3. BASIS ON WHICH RELIEF IS PRAYED FOR:

3.1 The Appellant / Applicant submits that that due to paucity of time

and to avoid any further delay in filing the present Appeal, the

Appellant / Applicant has been unable to file the typed copy of

Annexures / documents filed before the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai, and has instead filed the annexures /

documents as it was filed by the parties before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai.

3.2 That the Appellant / Applicant state that the Annexures /

documents (ANNEXURE A/2, ANNEXURE A/3, ANNEXURE

– A/5, ANNEXURE – A/6, ANNEXURE – A/14 (COLLY),

ANNEXURE – A/16 (COLLY) and ANNEXURE – A/20) are

dim and/or illegible and/or of small font, and the Appellant /

Applicant humbly undertakes to file a typed copy of the

annexures / documents as and when directed by this Hon’ble

Appellate Tribunal.

3.3 The present application is made bonafide and in the interest of

justice.

4. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE:

No irreparable harm or prejudice would be caused to the Respondent

/ Respondent if the present application is allowed and the balance of

convenience therefore lies clearly in favour of the Appellant /

Applicant.
 44

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India …Appellant

Versus
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ...Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT / APPLICANT

UNDER RULE 11 OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016 SEEKING
PERMISSION TO PLACE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AND
DOCUMENTS ON RECORD

The appellant / applicant above named states as follows:

1. RELIEF (S) / PRAYER:

In view of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made

in the present application, the Appellant / Applicant most humbly
prays that pending the hearing and disposal of the present Appeal,
this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to:

a) Allow the present Application and permit the Appellant /

Applicant to place the subsequent events and documents
(ANNEXURE – A/23 and ANNEXURE – A/24) on record;

b) Pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble

Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2. BRIEF FACTS AND GROUNDS:

2.1 The present application is being filed by the Appellant /

Applicant seeking permission to place the subsequent events and
documents on record. The Appellant / Applicant states that the
 45

detailed facts and grounds have been mentioned in the

accompanying appeal and the same may be read as part and
parcel of the present application and the same are not repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.

2.2 That on 24.01.2025, the 10th Meeting of the Committee of

Creditors was held wherein the CoC inter alia resolved, by a
majority vote, to appoint one Mr. Prashant Pradeep Agarwal
(M/s. Anmol Sekhri Consultants Private Limited) as the third
valuer for determining the fair value and liquidation value of the
Swarajya Project. A true copy of the Minutes of the 10th Meeting
of the Committee of Creditors dated 30.01.2025 is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE – A/23. A true
copy of the Voting Results dated 30.01.2025 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE – A/24.

3. BASIS ON WHICH RELIEF IS PRAYED FOR:

3.1 That the abovementioned subsequent events and documents are

of utmost relevance and hence the Appellant / Applicant may be
permitted to place the same on record before this Hon’ble
Appellate Tribunal.

3.2 That the abovementioned subsequent events and documents

would give a complete narration of the factual matrix.

3.3 The present application is made bonafide and in the interest of

justice.

4. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE:

The balance of convenience lies clearly in favour of the

Appellant/Applicant, and no irreparable harm or prejudice would be
caused to the Respondents if the ad-interim reliefs as prayed for is
granted to the Appellant / Applicant.
 50

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. OF 2025

[Arising under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016 against the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the
Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P.
No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Central Bank of India …Appellant

Versus
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors. ...Respondents

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. DETAILS OF APPEAL:

The present Appeal is being filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (the “Code”) against the order dated

21.01.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Hon’ble National

Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench Court - III (“Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai”) in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P.

No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019. A certified copy of the Impugned

Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,

Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-

III/2019 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE – A/1.

 51

2. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS

COMMUNICATED AND PROOF THEREOF, IF ANY

The Impugned Order was passed on 21.01.2025, and the webcopy

was uploaded on 22.01.2025. The Appellant applied for the certified

copy on 18.02.2025 and the same was provided on 21.02.2025, and

the said original certified copy of the Impugned Order is filed

alongwith the present Appeal.

3. THE ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT FOR SERVICE IS AS

SET OUT HEREUNDER

Central Bank of India

Stressed Assets Management Branch-I,
having office at:
346, Standard Building, Ground Floor,
Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400023

Address of Legal Representatives:

RAVI RAGHUNATH,
RATHINA MARAVARMAN,
Advocates, C-9, Lower Ground Floor,
Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110014
+91-9566061293
[email protected]
[email protected]

4. THE ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT FOR SERVICE OF

ALL NOTICES IN THE APPEAL ARE SET OUT
HEREUNDER

1. Mr. Bijendra Kumar Jha

Resolution Professional of
Neptune Developers Limited
Having office at:
2B/804, Dreams Complex, LBS Marg,
Bhandup (West), Mumbai – 400078
E-mail: [email protected]
 52

2. Shree Naman Developers Pvt Ltd

Having office at:
Naman Centre, C-31, G Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400051
E-mail: [email protected]

3. Asset Care & Reconstruction

Enterprise Limited (ACRE)
Having office at:
2nd floor, Mohandev Building, 13, Tolstoy
Marg, New Delhi – 110001
E-mail: [email protected]

4. Catalyst Trusteeship Limited

Having office at:
GDA House, First Floor, Plot No. 85, S. No.
94 & 95, Bhusari Colony (Right),
Kothurd, Pune – 411038
E-mail: [email protected]

5. Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt Ltd.,

(Lodha Finserv Private Limited)
Having office at:
7th floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills, N.M.
Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai– 400011
E-mail: [email protected]

6. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Company Limited (EARC)
Having office at:
Edelweiss House, OFF C.S.T. Road,
Kalina, Mumbai – 400098
E-mail: [email protected]

7. Axis Bank Limited

Having office at:
Axis House, Stressed Assets Group, 7th
floor, C-2, Wadia International Centre,
P.B.Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025
E-mail: [email protected]

8. Mangal Royal Jewels Private Limited

Having office at:
29C, Shyam Kamal Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Agarwal Market, M.G. Road,
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400 057
E-mail: [email protected]
 53

9. Duddu Fin-lease Limited

Having office at:
A-24, Grd Floor, Pandya Cottage, Shree
Ji Kiran, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai – 400 057
E-mail: [email protected]

10. Class of Creditors - Home Buyers

Represented by : Mr. Manish Jaju
D 502 Neelkanth Business Park,
Vidyavihar, Mumbai - 400 086
E-mail: [email protected]

11. Mr. Kunal Kantilal Vikamsey

Having Address at:
412, Maker Chambers No. 5, Plot No. 221,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021
E-mail: [email protected]

12. M/s Adroit Appraisers and Research Pvt. Ltd.

Having office at:
Office No. 309, Tower - B, ATS Bouquet
Sector 132, Noida, U.P. – 201304
E-mail: [email protected]

13. EKA Life Limited

Having address at:
6th Peninsula Tower A, Peninsula
Corporate Park, Lower Parel (W),
Mumbai - 400 013
E-mail: [email protected]

14. Esgee Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Having address at:
Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound
Level 16, D Wing Tower Lower Parel,
Mumbai- 400 013
E-mail: [email protected]

5. JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

The Appellant humbly submits that the subject matter of the present

Appeal is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal

 54

by virtue of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,

pursuant to which this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is empowered to

hear appeals from persons aggrieved by an order passed by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai under the Code.

6. LIMITATION:

The Appellant states that the impugned Order was pronounced by the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai on 21.01.2025 and the order

was uploaded on 22.01.2025. The Appellant applied for the certified

copy on 18.02.2025 and the same was provided on 21.02.2025. The

Appellant submits that there is a delay of 9 days in filing the present

Appeal and the Appellant has filed a separate interlocutory

application alongwith the present appeal praying for condonation of

delay in filing the present Appeal.

7. FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant is emergently filing the present appeal and is setting

out only the brief facts giving rise to the present Appeal, and the

Appellant craves leave and liberty to refer and rely upon the detailed

facts as set out in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-

III/2019 and pleadings filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,

Mumbai:

7.1. The Appellant is the Central Bank of India, a body Corporate

incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and

 55

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Appellant has 11.83% of

voting share as a member of the COC of the Corporate Debtor - M/s.

Neptune Developers Private Limited.

7.2. M/s. Neptune Developers Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”)

was a company engaged in real estate development like

residential/retail and commercial properties. The Respondent No. 1

is the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. The

Respondent No. 2 is the successful resolution applicant whose

resolution plan is pending consideration before the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai. The Respondents No. 3 to 10 are the members

of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”). The Respondents No. 11 and

12 are the valuers appointed during the CIRP (“CIRP Valuers”). The

Respondent 13 and 14 are the unsuccessful resolution applicants.

7.3. The Corporate Debtor had approached the Appellant Bank for

construction finance to be sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 100 Crores

for development of their project by name “Neptune Swarajya at

Ambivali – Kalyan”. The Appellant Bank has sanctioned Term loan

for construction vide Sanction letter dated 18.02.2013. The Appellant

bank is the exclusive charge holder to the said Project Land

measuring 1042 gunthe i.e. 26.05 acres at Village Ambivali, Tal.

Kalyan and structures constructed thereto. The Corporate Debtor

created Indenture of Mortgage dated 30.03.2013 in favour of Axis

 56

Trustees Service Ltd. (on behalf of Appellant Bank). The following

properties have been offered as security to secure the loan sanctioned:

Security First charge:

Primary Security:

ESCROW OF Cash flows/Hypothecation of all Receivables

from Ambivali Project, Escrow account to be maintained with the

branch of Appellant Bank

Mortgage of all Land Parcels and Buildings there upon on the

26.05 Acres of land at Ambivali, Kalyan, land and buildings thereon is

valued at Rs. 360.07 Crore; however, the value of the unsold land and

bldg. thereon on completion as per valuation report of SJA Industrial

Consultants Pvt. Limited dated 5th November 2012 is Rs. 262.12 Crore

7.4. The Project lands offered as prime security is more particularly

described as below:

“All that piece or parcel of the demarcated project land

admeasuring 1042 Guntha i.e. 26.05 Acres. or thereabouts
bearing Survey Nos. 1/3, 4/1, 2/3, 76/9, 74/12, 76/4, 76/5,
3/2, 3/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6/2, 4/8, 5/1, 5/2, 76/24, 2/6,
2/5, 3/1, 76/14, 4/14, 76/28P, 4/9, 4/10, 4/12, 74/13, 76/8,
74/15, 75, 76/10, 76/12, 74/9, 76/26, 74/10, 76/27, 4/7,
76/3, 74/11, 74/8 and 76/11 admeasuring 1042
Guntha/26.05 Acre, being lying and situate at Village –
Ambivali, Taluka-Kalyan within the Registration Sub-
District of Kalyan and Registration District of Thane, in
the State of Maharashtra (in short “Properties”).”
 57

7.5. Before the disbursal of the loan amount, the Appellant Bank had

taken valuation of the project site/structures thereto. A true copy of

the Valuation Report of M/s. SJA Industrial Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

dated 08.11.2012 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE –

A/2. A true copy of the Valuation Report of M/s V.S. Modi

Associates dated 22.02.2013 is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE – A/3. The summary of the above valuation reports are

as follows:

(a) Summary of valuation of M/s SJA Industrial Consultants

Pvt. Ltd.

Built up area Amount

(Rs. In Crores)

Residential building 7,28,112 Sq.ft. 262.12

area under sector 1, @Rs. 3600 per sq.ft
2 and 2C

Less contingency 7,28,112 sq.ft. 5.24

@2% @Rs. 72 per sq.ft.

Less profit marging 7,28,112 sq.ft. 26.21

@10% @ Rs. 360 per sq.ft.

Less : Expenditure 7,28,112 sq.ft. @ 43.69

for balance works Rs. 600 per sq.ft.
(i.e. 50% completed
and balance work
50%)

TOTAL 186.98

Approx. 187.00
 58

(b) Summary of valuation of M/s V.S. Modi Associates

Total saleable area

1 Sector 1 484787 sq.ft.

2 Sector 2 692244 sq.ft.

3 Sector 2C 144685 sq.ft.

Total 1321716 sq. ft.

Sold out area : 5,93,604 sq.ft. (Statement of sold area is provided).

Unsold area : 7,28,112 sq.ft.

Sale Rate : Rs. 3600/- + Rs. 50/-

Value of unsold area : Rs.269,40,14,400.00

Amount (in Crores)

1 Fair Market value of unsold portion Rs. 189.00

of salable area
2 Distress sale value Rs. 141.75

7.6. When the Appellant Bank had disbursed the loan, it was on the

understanding that as and when the Corporate Debtor is selling the

constructed flat/tenement they will approach the Appellant Bank for

NOCs. Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor approached the Appellant

Bank for NOCs for 118 number of tenements/flats on various dates

and Appellant Bank has issued the same. A true copy of list of
 59

flats/tenements for which NOCs have been issued by the Appellant

Bank is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/4.

7.7. While initially the Corporate Debtor was repaying the loan amount

however they later failed to service the loan account due to which it

was declared as NPA on 31.03.2015. Consequently, the Appellant

Bank filed Application under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and

Bankruptcy Act 1993 before the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal (O.A.

No. 236 of 2020) against the Corporate Debtor and its

guarantors/mortgagors for recovery of their outstanding to the extent

of Rs.172.29 Crores as also for enforcement of their security interest.

7.8. Further, the Appellant Bank also initiated action under SARFAESI

Act against the secured assets by issuance of notice dated 22.09.2017

under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In the said

SARFAESI Notice the securities that have been mortgaged / charged

have been shown as hereunder:

i All movable assets (of CD) comprising of Plant & Machineries,

accessories, equipment’s, R & D equipments, utilities, furnitures,
electrical fittings, vehicles, information technological / computer
installations and other movables etc. (both present and future)
whether installed or not and lying loose or in cases at Borrowers
factory / office premises / godown at the Project site at Village -
Ambivali, Taluka – Kalyan, District – Thane in State of
Maharashtra and / or in transit and or anywhere else or which
may at any time be acquired thereafter during the continuation of
the security or wherever else the same may be held by anybody,
anywhere to the order or disposition (of CD) or in the course of
transit to (CD).
 60

ii Operating Cash Flows, commissions revenues of whatever nature

(including user charges) and whatever arising and Book debts,
receivables of the project both present and future (of CD).

iii All Bank accounts, including without limitation, the Debt Service
Reserve Account, the Retention Account (or any account in
substitution thereof), major maintenance reserve accounts, letters
of credit, escrow account and other reserves and such other Bank
accounts that maybe opened in terms hereof and of Projects
Documents and over all funds from time to time deposited therein
and over all Authorised Investments or other securities
representing all amounts credited thereto (of CD).

iv All intangibles including but not limited to goodwill, intellectual

property rights, undertakings and uncalled capital, present and
future of the project (of CD).

v Right, title and interest, claims and demands in and to the Project
Documents, contracts as amended, varied or Supplemented from
time to time duly acknowledged and consented to by the relevant
counter-parties to such Project Documents to the extent not
expressly provided in each such Project Documents, all as
amended, varied or supplemented from time to time both present
and future (of CD).

vi Right, title and interest, claims and demands in and to and under
all the Government Approvals, Clearances, licenses of the
project, both present and future (of CD).

vii Right, title and interest, claims and demands in EPC Contracts,
all letters of credit, guarantees including contractor guarantees,
sponsors guarantees and liquidated damages and performance
bonds provided by any party to the Project documents or
contracts in favour of the Borrower both present and future (of
CD).
 61

viii Right, title and interest, claims and demands in, to and under all
Insurance Contracts / Insurance Proceeds of the Project, both
present and future (of CD).

ix All and singular stock in trade comprising of raw materials, semi-

finished goods, stores and spares not relating to the Plant &
Machinery (Consumables Stores and Spares), Bills Receivable,
Book debts, Claims and all monies receivable and all other
movables of the Borrower (excluding such movables as are
permitted by the Bank from time to time) but including documents
of title to goods and other assets, such as outstanding money,
receivable including receivables by way of cash assistance and /
or cash, including under the Cash Incentive Scheme or any other
Scheme claims including claims by way of refund of customs /
excise duties under the Duty Drawback Credit Scheme or any
other Scheme, bills, invoices, documents, contracts, engagements,
securities, investment, deposits and rights, both present and
future, of you, being and lying in premises or godowns of business
at Project Site relating to the project at Village – Ambivali,
Taluka – Kalyan, District – Thane in the State of Maharashtra
and whether lying loose or otherwise used in your business at the
said site or in transit now belonging to or that may at any time
during the continuance of the said facilities and this security,
belonging (to CD) or that may be held by any party to the order
or disposition (of CD)

x Escrow of Cash Flows / Hypothecation of all receivables from

Ambivali Project (of CD). Escrow account maintained with
Branch of Appellant Bank

xi First Charge on all that piece and parcel of the demarcated

project land ad-measuring 1042 Gunthe i.e. 26.05. Acres or
thereabouts bearing Survey Nos. 1/3, 4/1, 2/3, 76/9, 74/12, 76/4,
76/5, 3/2, 3/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6/2, 4/8, 5/1, 5/2, 76/24,2/6,2/5,
3/1, 76/14, 4/14, 76/28P, 4/9, 4/10, 4/12, 74/13, 76/8, 74/15, 75,
76/10, 76/12, 74/9, 76/26, 74/10, 76/27, 4/7, 76/3, 74/11, 74/8 an
76/11 admeasuring 1042 gunthe / 26.05. Acres being lying and
situatede at Village Ambivali, Taluka Kalyan within the
Registration Sub- District of Thane and registration District of
 62

Thane together with all buildings and structures constructed / to

be constructed thereon and all Plant and Machinery attached to
the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth
both present and future (of CD).

7.9. Thus it is clear from the above said that from 22.09.2017 (the date of

issuance of SARFAESI notice) the Corporate Debtor has lost their

rights on the project assets / constructed Units to enter into

Agreement for Sale or to execute any Sale Deed. Further the entire

sale proceeds realized by Corporate Debtor after 22.09.2017 shall

also remain under attachment as the Bank is having first charge on

all receivables from Ambivali project of Corporate Debtor. Thus in

all manner the rights/interest/title of the Appellant Bank as the

exclusive mortgage/charge holder have been prejudiced to the greater

extent by the acts of commissions and commissions of the Resolution

Professional, Valuers as also the Resolution Applicant.

7.10. The Appellant filed CP No. 3794/IBC/MB/2019 (“Insolvency

Petition”) under Section 7 of the Code against the Corporate Debtor

for a debt and default of INR 185,53,24,319/- as on 13.08.2019. The

Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai admitted the Insolvency

Petition vide an order dated 16.07.2021, and hence Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) commenced in respect of

the Corporate Debtor.

 63

7.11. The claims admitted in the CIRP upto 10.02.2023 is as follows:

LIST OF FINANCIAL CREDITORS UP TO 10.02.2023:

Sr. Name of the Creditor Amount Claimed Amount

No. (in Rupees) Admitted
(in Rupees)

SECURED FINANCIAL CREDITORS

1 Assets Care & 11,70,68,76,456 11,70,68,76,456

Reconstruction
Enterprise Limited

2 Central Bank of India 2,51,99,29,090 2,51,99,29,090

3 Catalyst Trusteeship 94,59,83,000 94,59,83,000

Limited

4 Tomorrow Capital 60,13,45,001 60,13,45,001

Enterprises Private
Limited (former Lodha
Finserv Private Limited)

Sub-Total 15,77,41,33,547 15,77,41,33,547

UNSECURED FINANCIAL CREDITORS

1 Edelweiss Asset 3,64,74,02,691 3,64,74,02,691

Reconstruction
Company Limited

2 Mangal Royal Jewels 24,50,33,973 24,50,33,973

Private Limited

3 Axis Bank Limited 18,84,41,217 18,84,41,217

4 Duddu Fin-Lease 15,55,65,754 15,55,65,754

Limited

Sub-Total 4,23,64,43,635 4,23,64,43,635

GRAND TOTAL 20,01,05,77,182 20,01,05,77,182

 64

DETAILS OF CLAIMS OF OPERATIONAL CREDITORS UP TO

10.02.2023:
Amount Amount Admitted Amount Amount on
Claimed Rejected hold
94,90,67,380 37,41,09,974 34,23,63,035 23,25,94,371

DETAILS OF CLAIMS OF OTHER CREDITORS UP TO

10.02.2023:
Amount Claimed Amount Admitted Amount Rejected
58,58,296 17,06,689 41,51,607

7.12. During CIRP process the Resolution Professional (Respondent No.2)

valued the assets of the Corporate Debtor through two Valuers by

name (i) Mr. Kunal Kantilal Vikamsey (in short “Mr. Kunal”) & (ii)

M/s Adroit Appraisers and Research Private Limited (in short “M/s

Adroit”), being the Respondents No. 11 and 12 herein.

7.13. The summary of the valuation of Mr. Kunal Kantilal Vikamsey is as

below:

(a) Valuation of vacant land at Village Ambivali

Sr. Type Village Survey Land Prevailing Fair Market

No. of No. Area Market Value Rs.
Land (Sq. mt.) Rate (Rs.
Per. Sq.
Mt.)
1 NA Ambivali 76/5 516 5,500 *28,37,819
2 NA Ambivali 83/3A 921 5,500 50,63,559
3 NA Ambivali 71/5B 870 5,500 47,85,341
4 NA Ambivali 83/4 405 5,500 22,25,740
5 NA Ambivali 74/4 819 5,500 45,07,124
6 NA Ambivali 76/32 2,256 5,500 1,24,08,501
7 NA Ambivali 2/1 - 5,500 -----
8 NA Ambivali 48/2A 2,995 5,500 1,64,70,476
9 NA Ambivali 61/1 637 5,500 35,05,541
10 NA Ambivali 61/17 1,335 5,500 73,44,942
11 NA Ambivali 63 971.232 5,500 53,41,776
12 NA Ambivali 65/6 5463.18 5,500 3,00,47,490
13 NA Ambivali 67/3 283.276 5,500 15,58,018
14 NA Ambivali 67/7 1001.583 5,500 55,08,707
 65

15 NA Ambivali 76/34 1011.7 5,500 55,64,350

16 NA Ambivali 76/37 1416.38 5,500 77,90,090
17 NA Ambivali 78/4 404.68 5,500 22,25,740
18 NA Ambivali 78/5 2073.985 5,500 1,14,06,918
19 NA Ambivali 79/1 485.616 5,500 26,70,888
20 NA Ambivali 79/3 161.872 5,500 8,90,296
21 NA Ambivali 79/4 1558.018 5,500 85,69,099
22 NA Ambivali 80/2 1730.007 5,500 95,15,039
23 NA Ambivali 83/1A 3085.685 5,500 1,69,71,268
24 NA Ambivali 83/9 1224.157 5,500 67,32,864
25 NA Ambivali 84/8 5018.032 5,500 2,75,99,176
26 NA Ambivali 84/11 657.605 5,500 36,16,828
27 NA Ambivali 84/13 667.722 5,500 36,72,471
28 NA Ambivali 84/17B 607.02 5,500 33,38,610
29 NA Ambivali 89/6 3682.588 5,500 2,02,54,234
30 NA Ambivali 5/4 0 5,500 ---
31 NA Ambivali 61/6 1841.294 5,500 1,01,27,117
32 NA Ambivali 65/3 3642.12 5,500 2,00,31,660
33 NA Ambivali 81/4 3237.44 5,500 1,78,05,920
34 NA Ambivali 54/3B 435.031 5,500 23,92,671
35 NA Ambivali 81/19 1214.04 5,500 66,77,220
36 NA Ambivali 78/3 2660.771 5,500 1,46,34,241
37 NA Ambivali 26 1638.954 5,500 90,14,247
38 NA Ambivali 76/39 252.925 5,500 13,91,088
39 NA Ambivali 8/14 708.19 5,500 38,95,045
40 NA Ambivali 44/9B 3298.142 5,500 1,81,39,781
41 NA Ambivali 44/9C 232.691 5,500 12,79,801
42 NA Ambivali 50/4 617.137 5,500 33,94,254
43 NA Ambivali 70/4A 3237.44 5,500 1,78,05,920
44 NA Ambivali 90/4A 12039.23 5,500 6,62,15,765
45 NA Ambivali 81/6 4653.82 5,500 2,55,96,010
46 NA Ambivali 7/1 1972.815 5,500 1,08,50,483
47 NA Ambivali 7/6 768.892 5,500 42,28,906
48 NA Ambivali 84/6 2144.804 5,500 1,17,96,422
49 NA Ambivali 83/10 1325.327 5,500 72,89,299
50 NA Ambivali 70/3 202.34 5,500 11,12,870
51 NA Ambivali 61/12 1942.464 5,500 1,06,83,552
52 NA Ambivali 89/4 718.307 5,500 39,50,689
53 NA Ambivali 48/1 3277.908 5,500 1,80,28,494
54 NA Ambivali 48/5 617.137 5,500 33,94,254
55 NA Ambivali 60/11 303.51 5,500 16,69,305
56 NA Ambivali 61/7 1274.742 5,500 70,11,081
57 NA Ambivali 61/13 667.722 5,500 36,72,471
58 NA Ambivali 65/7 2225.74 5,500 1,22,41,570
59 NA Ambivali 65/8 2630.42 5,500 1,44,67,310
60 NA Ambivali 65/10 2225.74 5,500 1,22,41,570
61 NA Ambivali 77/3 121.404 5,500 6,67,722
62 NA Ambivali 77/4 151.755 5,500 8,34,653
63 NA Ambivali 77/6 182.106 5,500 10,01,583
64 NA Ambivali 77/17A1 4087.268 5,500 2,24,79,974
65 NA Ambivali 78/1 1254.508 5,500 68,99,794
66 NA Ambivali 78/2 566.552 5,500 31,16,036
67 NA Ambivali 84/2p 2579.835 5,500 1,41,89,093
68 NA Ambivali 85/1A1 12362.97 5,500 6,79,96,357
 66

69 NA Ambivali 76/39 252.925 5,500 13,91,088

70 NA Ambivali 49/5 202.34 5,500 11,12,870
71 NA Ambivali 53/1 1011.7 5,500 55,64,350
72 NA Ambivali 53/4 404.68 5,500 22,25,740
73 NA Ambivali 8/6 404.68 5,500 22,25,740
74 NA Ambivali 9/1 333.861 5,500 18,36,236
75 NA Ambivali 74/1B 485.616 5,500 26,70,888
76 NA Ambivali 76/19 2256.091 5,500 1,24,08,501
77 NA Ambivali 49/4 515.967 5,500 28,37,819
78 NA Ambivali 6/3 252.925 5,500 13,91,088
79 NA Ambivali 6/5 920.647 5,500 50,63,559
80 NA Ambivali 67/5 768.892 5,500 42,28,906
81 NA Ambivali 69 6474.88 5,500 3,56,11,840
82 NA Ambivali 74/20 80.936 5,500 4,45,148
83 NA Ambivali 76/20 2458.431 5,500 1,35,21,371
84 NA Ambivali 85/1B 17472.06 5,500 9,60,96,325
85 NA Ambivali 60/4 202.34 5,500 11,12,870
86 NA Ambivali 61/2 950.998 5,500 52,30,489
87 NA Ambivali 61/4 1689.539 5,500 92,92,465
88 NA Ambivali 61/5 1537.784 5,500 84,57,812
89 NA Ambivali 74/5 738.541 5,500 40,61,976
90 NA Ambivali 76/30 2458.431 5,500 1,35,21,371
91 NA Ambivali 77/15 475.499 5,500 26,15,245
92 NA Ambivali 82/9 1841.294 5,500 1,01,27,117
93 NA Ambivali 84/5 5456.063 5,500 2,99,91,847
94 NA Ambivali 86/4 4916.862 5,500 2,70,42,741
95 NA Ambivali 90/3 1517.55 5,500 83,46,525
96 NA Ambivali 73/12 1821.06 5,500 1,00,15,830
97 NA Ambivali 73/20 768.892 5,500 42,28,906
98 NA Ambivali 74/17 1416.38 5,500 77,90,090
99 NA Ambivali 76/21 1416.38 5,500 77,90,090
100 NA Ambivali 67/2 1072.402 5,500 58,98,211
101 NA Ambivali 73/9 182.106 5,500 10,01,583
102 NA Ambivali 84/7 2357.261 5,500 1,29,64,936
103 NA Ambivali 84/17C 2094.219 5,500 1,15,18,205
104 NA Ambivali 85/1A 4097.385 5,500 2,25,35,618
105 NA Ambivali 90/4B 11938.06 5,500 6,56,59,330
106 NA Ambivali 67/4 252.925 5,500 13,91,088
107 NA Ambivali 67/8 718.307 5,500 39,50,689
108 NA Ambivali 70/6 2023.4 5,500 1,11,28,700
109 NA Ambivali 86/3 1021.817 5,500 56,19,994
110 NA Ambivali 89/7 4087.268 5,500 2,24,79,974
111 NA Ambivali 49/7 101.17 5,500 5,56,435
112 NA Ambivali 50/2 354.095 5,500 19,47,523
113 NA Ambivali 73/11 617.137 5,500 33,94,254
114 NA Ambivali 83/12 819.477 5,500 45,07,124
115 NA Ambivali 76/16 1274.742 5,500 70,11,081
116 NA Ambivali 81/1 1214.04 5,500 66,77,220
117 NA Ambivali 76/18 3379.078 5,500 1,85,84,929
118 NA Ambivali 74/19C 354.095 5,500 19,47,523
119 NA Ambivali 73/14 536.201 5,500 29,49,106
120 NA Ambivali 4/11 455.265 5,500 25,03,958
121 NA Ambivali 4/15 485.616 5,500 26,70,888
122 NA Ambivali 61/9 667.722 5,500 36,72,471
 67

123 NA Ambivali 65/4 9206.47 5,500 5,06,35,585

124 NA Ambivali 73/6 870.062 5,500 47,85,341
125 NA Ambivali 73/21 404.68 5,500 22,25,740
126 NA Ambivali 73/23 1021.817 5,500 56,19,994
127 NA Ambivali 76/2 404.68 5,500 22,25,740
128 NA Ambivali 76/15 303.51 5,500 16,69,305
129 NA Ambivali 88/1 404.68 5,500 22,25,740
130 NA Ambivali 89/2 6141.019 5,500 3,37,75,605
131 NA Ambivali 89/8 20062.01 5,500 11,03,41,061
132 NA Ambivali 46/2 768.892 5,500 42,28,906
133 NA Ambivali 46/3 1072.402 5,500 58,98,211
134 NA Ambivali 48/6 2377.495 5,500 1,30,76,223
135 NA Ambivali 49/3 303.51 5,500 16,69,305
136 NA Ambivali 60/1 435.031 5,500 23,92,671
137 NA Ambivali 60/2 4461.597 5,500 2,45,38,784
138 NA Ambivali 60/3 586.786 5,500 32,27,323
139 NA Ambivali 60/5 3227.323 5,500 1,77,50,277
140 NA Ambivali 83/2 1638.9584 5,500 90,14,247
141 NA Ambivali 84/12 1537.784 5,500 84,57,812
142 NA Ambivali 84/14P 870.062 5,500 47,85,341
143 NA Ambivali 84/15 3783.758 5,500 2,08,10,669
144 NA Ambivali 64/1 1841.294 5,500 1,01,27,117
145 NA Ambivali 65/2 11938.06 5,500 6,56,59,330
146 NA Ambivali 1/9 2357.261 5,500 1,29,64,936
147 NA Ambivali 1/10 1436.614 5,500 79,01,377
148 NA Ambivali 1/11 4340.193 5,500 2,38,71,062
149 NA Ambivali 82/1 4643.703 5,500 2,55,40,367
150 NA Ambivali 82/2 3864.694 5,500 2,12,55,817
151 NA Ambivali 82/3 435.031 5,500 23,92,671
152 NA Ambivali 82/4 252.925 5,500 13,91,088
153 NA Ambivali 76/35 1719.89 5,500 94,59,395
154 NA Ambivali 76/36 2023.4 5,500 1,11,28,700
155 NA Ambivali 77/8 252.925 5,500 13,91,088
156 NA Ambivali 77/9 1305.093 5,500 71,78,012
157 NA Ambivali 79/2 20.234 5,500 1,01,170
(a) TOTAL 3,23,491 1,77,91,90,796

* Serial No. 1 is of vacant land in the Project “Swarajya” & Serial Nos.

2 to 157 is of vacant land in the Project “Ramrajya”

(b) Valuation of KDMC flats

Sr. Flat Building Sector Carpet Prevailing Fair Liquidation

No. No. No. No. Area Market Market Value in
(Sq. Rate in Value in Rs.
Ft.) Rs./Sq. Rs.
Ft.
1 704 13 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
2 706 14 2 387 4,500 17,41,500
3 602 15 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
4 403 15 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
 68

5 404 15 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050

6 406 16/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
7 506 16/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
8 2 16/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
9 1 19/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
10 606 19/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
11 701 19/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
12 702 19/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
13 704 19/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
14 705 19/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
15 706 19/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
16 5 19/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
17 701 19/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
18 703 19/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
19 704 19/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
20 705 19/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
21 706 19/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
22 5 18 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
23 4 18 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
(b) TOTAL 8,901 4,0054,500 2,80,38,150

(c) Valuation of Barter flats of “Swarajya”

Sr. Flat Buildin Secto Carpe Prevailin Fair Liquidatio

No No. g No. r No. t Area g Market Market n Value in
. (Sq. Rate in Value in Rs.
Ft.) Rs./Sq. Rs.
Ft.
1 707 9/B 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
2 001 14 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
3 010 14 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
4 703 14 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
5 703 17 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
6 005 2 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
7 701 2 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
8 702 2 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
9 704 2 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
10 705 2 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
11 002 18 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
12 703 4 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
13 703 6 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
14 705 6 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
15 706 6 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
16 302 7A 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
17 301 7A 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
18 204 8 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
19 705 8 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
20 701 13 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
21 701 16 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
22 706 16 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
 69

23 001 16 1 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050

24 712 2 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
25 402 11/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
26 304 11/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
27 007 11/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
28 305 11/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
29 501 11/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
30 501 10 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
31 607 4/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
32 707 4/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
33 706 5/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
34 704 5/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
35 101 5/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
36 107 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
37 601 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
38 603 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
39 605 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
40 606 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
41 607 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
42 702 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
43 703 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
44 704 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
45 705 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
46 707 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
47 604 6 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
48 306 7 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
49 708 7 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
50 006 8/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
51 302 8/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
52 402 8/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
53 602 8/A 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
54 105 8/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
55 602 8/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
56 605 8/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
57 004 16/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
58 701 16/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
59 703 16/A 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
60 604 16/B 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
61 604 15 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
62 701 15 2 387 4,500 17,41,500 12,19,050
63 707 2 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
64 007 5 1 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
65 102 1/B 2 233 4,500 10,48,500 7,33,950
TOTA (c) 17763 7,99,3350 5,59,53,45
L 0 0

SUMMARY
Sr. Project Sub- Status Fair Market Liquidation
No. Name Project / Value (Rs.) Value (Rs.)
Building
1 Swarajya Swarajya Completed 11,99,88,000 8,39,91,600
Project (b+c) (b+c)
 70

2 Ramrajya Land Vacant Land 1,77,91,90,796 1,24,54,33,557

(a) (a)
3 Ekansh Under 20,10,63,365 14,07,44,356
4 Uddan Construction 20,1063,365 14,07,44,356
5 Jal Project 12,89,86,900 9,02,90,830
Tarang
6 Anant 19,25,85,719 13,48,10,004
Total 2,62,28,78,146 1,83,60,14,702

7.14. The summary of the valuation of M/s Adroit Appraisers and Research

Private Limited is as below is as below:

VALUATION OF THE FLATS SEALED BY KDMC:

Sr. Built Up Sector Bldg. Flat Derived Rate Fair Market Value
No. Area No. No. Nos. Per SFT in Rs.
(SFT) (INR)
1 523 1 13 704 3,800 19,87,400
2 523 2 14 705 3,800 19,87,400
3 523 2 15 602 3,800 19,87,400
4 523 2 15 403 3,800 19,87,400
5 523 2 15 404 3,800 19,87,400
6 523 2 16/A 406 3,800 19,87,400
7 523 2 16/A 506 3,800 19,87,400
8 523 2 16/B 2 3,800 19,87,400
9 523 2 19/A 1 3,800 19,87,400
10 523 2 19/A 605 3,800 19,87,400
11 523 2 19/A 701 3,800 19,87,400
12 523 2 19/A 702 3,800 19,87,400
13 523 2 19/A 704 3,800 19,87,400
14 523 2 19/A 705 3,800 19,87,400
15 523 2 19/A 706 3,800 19,87,400
16 523 2 19/B 5 3,800 19,87,400
17 523 2 19/B 701 3,800 19,87,400
18 523 2 19/B 703 3,800 19,87,400
19 523 2 19/B 704 3,800 19,87,400
20 523 2 19/B 705 3,800 19,87,400
21 523 2 19/B 706 3,800 19,87,400
22 523 2 18 5 3,800 19,87,400
23 523 2 18 4 -- --
TOTAL 4,37,22,800
Deducting Pending Property Tax 1,21,23,796
Total Fair Value (INR) 3,15,99,004

Property Address Fair Value Liquidation Value

No. (INR) (INR)
1 Unsold Flats (as 3,15,99,004 2,21,19,303
mentioned above) at
 71

housing development
named as “Swarajya”,
Village Ambivali, al.
Kalyan, Dist. Thane.

7.15. The Respondent No.1 prepared an Information Memorandum during

the CIRP. A copy of the Information Memorandum prepared by

the Respondent No.1 is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE – A/5.

7.16. The Appellant states that certain objections / issues were raised by

during the COC meetings which are summarised as follows:

Date: 27.07.2022 Second COC Meeting

a) The Appellant Bank from the initial stage have been pressing

upon that the Forensic Audit / Transaction Audit shall have to be

carried out since the inception of the loan as nothing could be

conclusively determined for the reason that the trail of

transactions starts from the financial year 2011 – 12 and if the

same is not done from inception, the actual purpose of forensic

audit will not be served. Edelweiss have also been supporting the

said view. It was further discussed by the rest of the COC

Members that the Forensic Audit Report shall have to be only for

a period of 2 years.

b) The estimate project cost for completion of the Project

Swarajya was also discussed along with the issue of handing over
 72

the flats to the flat buyers who have made payment of full sale

consideration. Even though the said agenda was discussed it was

deferred and thereafter it was not taken up at all.

Date: 30.08.2022 Third COC Meeting

a) The following have been summarized in the meeting with

regard to Units ready and not ready:

Full Money Part Money Total

Received Received
Units Ready 590 + 166 = 0 756
756
Units Not 187 (minimal 525 712
Ready work)

943 525 1468

b) RP discussed that for 353 Units (166 + 187) where money have

been received in full, possession shall be handed over. The

Appellant Bank has stated that they have issued only 110 NOC’s.

As the project is financed by them and further as Appellant Bank

had sanctioned the fresh loan (construction finance) they have

charge on entire Project ‘Swarajya’. RP stated that certain flats

have also been sold prior to Appellant Banks loan which cannot

be charged and given as security. Appellant Bank stated that all

the Units have been charged to them and without NOC possession

cannot be given and if possession have been given before loan of

Appellant Bank the charge have been created on them also.

c) It was insisted by the Appellant Bank that Transaction Audit

should be for 10 years whereas other Financial Creditors had

 73

insisted that the Transaction Audit shall be only for 2 years

(which was voted with 77.94%).

d) As the issue of handing over of possession could not be decided

it was concluded that a legal opinion be sought for.

Date: 17.10.2022 Fifth COC Meeting

The Appellant Bank raised their concern with regard to handing

over the possession of flats since they have issued only 118 NOC’s

and the balance flats have been sold without their NOC. RP

clarified that they are getting a Legal Opinion on the said issue.

Date: 11.11.2022 Sixth COC Meeting

The request for Resolution Plan including the evaluation matrix

was discussed and approved by voting (with 93.46% of vote).

Date: 16.01.2023 Seventh COC Meeting

Three Resolution Plans have been received and the same was

discussed.

Date: 16.03.2023 Ninth COC Meeting

Modified Resolution Plans along with clarifications received

were put up for voting

7.17. Incidentally in the 3rd COC meeting held during CIRP it was

decided that the issue of handing over of possession of the Units

shall have to be sought on a legal opinion. The RP Counsel (M/s

MDP Partners) in their legal opinion dated 10.09.2022 opined as

below:
 74

Sr. Status of Status of Treatment of such Home

No. Construction Money Buyers & Central Bank of
Received India
by the
Corporate
Debtor
1 Fully Constructed Money The Hon’ble NCLAT has
received held that the possession of
In this case, Central in full but such Units where allotment
Bank cannot object handover letters have been issued to
such handover. Even not done the home buyers and money
otherwise Central is received in full must be
Bank has filed its handed over to the Home
claims with the Buyers. Therefore once the
Resolution Agreement of Sale has been
Professional and the entered into and / or the
same will be Allotment letter has been
addresses by issued and money has been
Resolution Applicant received in full, the
in Resolution Plan. If Corporate Debtor is no
Resolution Plan is more the owner of the Units
approved the claims and is only a custodian until
of creditors is handover of the Units.
addressed in entirety The Resolution
and accordingly the Professional will have to
security interest satisfy Central Bank of
anyways stands India that the monies have
extinguished been received in full.

2 Partially constructed Money Same as Scenario 1 above

with minimal pending received
work in full
3 Partially constructed Partial The Resolution Professional
with Minimal money can with the approval of the
pending work received COC carry out the
remaining minimal
construction work of such
Units if the balance money is
willing to be paid by the
home buyers. Once the
entire sale consideration is
received and the Occupancy
Certificate is received, the
Units can be handed over to
such Home Buyers.
Otherwise the claims filed
by such Home Buyers will
have to be treated
 75

accordingly by the
Resolution Applicant in his
Resolution Plan.
In the event of Liquidation
the claims of such home
buyers as Unsecured
Financial Creditors will be
addressed as per the
waterfall mechanism under
section 53 of the IBC.

A true copy of the Legal Opinion dated 10.09.2022 of M/s. MDP

Partners is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/6.

7.18. The Appellant states that it is the absolute responsibility of the

Resolution Professional as advised by their Counsel to verify

whether Appellant Bank has received in full the sale consideration

on sale of the units. The Resolution Professional is incorrect that

for majority of units booking have been done prior to 2013. On

booking only 5% to 10% of sale balance proceeds is received and

balance paid on registration. Many of the Units have been

registered much after the mortgage date. Without resolving the

same the Resolution Professional proceeded on the basis of

Addendum to Resolution Plan. A true copy of Resolution Plan

dated 15.02.2023 of the Respondent No.2 is annexed hereto and

marked as ANNEXURE – A/7. A true copy of the Addendum to

the Resolution Plan dated 13.03.2023 of the Respondent No.2 of

is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/8.

7.19. That the issue of handing over the possession was dealt with in the

Addendum to Resolution plan as below:

 76

“According to our understanding, the Swarajya Project

is almost complete and the RA proposes that the sold

units will be handed over to the Home Buyers within one

year after the effective date for the rate agreed in

Agreement for Sale provided the pending receivables of

the Home Buyers are received in accordance with

Exhibit C. Additionally the RA will not charge the Home

Buyers an additional fee if such Units remain unsold

and possession is pending.”

7.20. The Appellant states that the Resolution Professional has taken up

a stand (as that of their Advocate) that majority of the flats have

already been sold prior to 2013 but the Resolution Professional’s

record themselves is speaking contra to the said stand which shows

that registration of 525 flats is much after 30.03.2013. The

Corporate Debtor has also sold 165 number of flats / Units after

the issuance of SARFAESI notice dated 22.09.2017 and this sale

of units by the Corporate Debtor after issuance of SARFAESI

notice is invalid as the secured assets remain under attachment and

the Borrower cannot sell/transfer/encumber the secured assets

after issuance of SARFAESI notice. From the records of the

Resolution Professional it is clear that huge amount of

Rs.41,60,11,769.78 has to be received by the Appellant Bank on

sale transactions registered after 30.03.2013. Further the Appellant

Bank is also entitled to the balance sale proceeds of

 77

Rs.4,77,55,453.21. All these issues have never been dealt with by

the Resolution Professional. The Information Memorandum is

very clear that Sector II of “Swarajya” project is not fully

completed. Appellant Bank elucidated information from their

records that plan was sanctioned for 3028 Units (inclusive of 69

number of shops) whereas the Information Memorandum deals

with only 2628 Units. Thus the total Units dealt with in the

Information Memorandum is 2628 which establishes clearly that

the balance unsold flats under construction / partly constructed is

331 flats. Neither in the Information Memorandum nor in the

Valuation Reports or in the Resolution Plan this issue has been

dealt with. The valuation of these unfinished Units under

construction will be very huge which benefit is being passed

silently to the Resolution Applicant at the complete loss of the

other stake holders inter alia Appellant Bank herein.

7.21. During the CIRP, the Appellant was informed by the Resolution

Professional (through CIRP Valuers) that 11.60 acres of project

land have been utilized for construction and the balance of 14.60

Acres have all been consumed for other purposes such as MSEB,

reservation, amenities, road etc. The Appellant Bank in this regard

raised various grievances to the Resolution Professional and the

latter replied to the same with the help of CIRP Valuers.

Following are the grievances raised by Bank and the clarifications

offered by the Resolution Professional (through CIRP Valuers).

 78

Sr. Bank email dated RP reply Valuers

No. 28.03.2023 dated email dated 29.03.2023
29.03.2023
1 Out of 26 Acres of RP will As per approved plan copy
land the check up of OCC net plot area is
particulars of land with Valuers 46,931 sq.mt. i.e. 11.60
utilised for and revert Acres (for both Sector 1 &
construction of back 2) after deduction for roads,
Sector 1 and 2 MSEB reservation,
recreational ground,
amenity area etc., from total
land area. Neither the
Valuer has attached the
approved plan with the
Valuation Reports nor he
has specified clarity in his
clarification to what extent
of land have been allotted to
Road, MSEB, recreational
ground, amenity area etc.
2. Out of total 63 RP will As per information provided
shops only 50 check up no unsold shops are
shops have been with Valuers available under the
sold and revert ownership of CD
back
3 Flats sold under M/s Adroit The Valuer M/s Adroit have
Barter transaction have not considered only unsold units
considered by Mr. considered on barter for valuation
Kunal and not valuation of which is under possession of
considered by M/s flats handed KDMC
M/s Adroit over to
rational behind barter in
the same. their
valuation
report.
Further total
out of 23
KDMC flats
valuation
done for only
22 flats
which
carried FMV
as Rs.
4,37,22,800
and after
deducting
 79

property
taxes of Rs.
1,12,23,796
the final
FMV of Rs.
3,15,99,004
have been
arrived at.
4 Whether the flats RP cannot No comments of Valuer (as
of KDMC have provide they are not concerned)
been available as clarify on the
security in the same as the
event of KDMC will
liquidation contest
legally the
said issue

A true copy of the e-mail dated 28.03.2023 issued by the Appellant

Bank is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/9. A true

copy of e-mail dated 29.03.2023 issued by the Resolution

Professional is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE –

A/10. A true copy of the e-mail dated 29.03.2023 issued by the

valuers is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/11.

7.22. On 31.03.2023, the Appellant Bank issued a detailed letter to the

Resolution Professional wherein numerous issues / objections

have been raised with regard to Resolution Plan (set out

hereinbelow). A true copy of the letter dated 31.03.2023 issued by

the valuers is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/12.

“As per the IM prepared, the total land of “Swarajya” Projects is an

area of 26 acres. The present status of built up units are as under:

 80

Sr. Sector Building Wing Residential Commercial

No s s units/flats units/shops
.
1 Sector 18 22 116 113 1074 55 55 8
-I 0 4
2 Sector 19 27 153 146 590 8 8 3
-II 0 8

During physical inspection of the project by Bank officials it has been

revealed that the Sector I & II has been developed only in a portion of

project area and a huge portion of open land is still left. However, the

IM does not disclose the said fact anywhere, whereas describing the

“Ramrajya” project it has been clearly mentioned that out of the total

project land only 74 acres have been conveyed. On a bare perusal of

the IM it obviously gives an impression that unlike the other projects,

that the entire land under Project “Swarajya” is already exhausted

under the presently developed two sectors and there is no open land

left for further developments.

In the valuation report submitted M/s Kunal K. Vikamsey, only the

developed area of “Swarajya” project has been taken into

consideration. Brief of the said valuation is provided below:

Sr. Particular No. Carpet Prevaili FMV LV

No s of area ng
. flats market
conside
red
1 Flats 23 8,901 4500 4,00,54,500 2,80,38,150
handed sq.ft.
over to
KDMC
2 Flats 65 17,763 4,500 7,99,33,500 5,59,53,450
handed sq.ft.
over to
Barter
 81

Total 88 26,664 11,99,88,000 8,39,91,600

sq.ft.

Further as per valuation report of M/s Adroit Appraisers & Research

Pvt. Ltd. the final FMV of Rs. 3,15,99,004 has been arrived. Details of

valuation of “Swarajya” Project is as under:

Sr. Particulars No. Built Prevailing FMV LV

No of up area market
flats value
considered
1 Flats 23 12,029 3,800 3,15,99,004 2,21,19,303
handed sq.ft.
over to
KDMC
Total 23 12,029 3,15,99,004 2,21,19,303
sq.ft.

In the valuation process adopted in the table above, price of flats

already handed over to Barter has not been evaluated at all. Even out

of the total 23 KDMC flats valuation has been taken of only 22 flats.

After deduction of pending property taxes, the fair market value has

been arrived at only mere Rs. 4,37,22,800/- which is far below the real

value of the project with the huge open land.

None of the Valuation Reports mentioned about the quantum of vacant

open land which may be utilised for further developments.

The valuation methods of the two Valuers are not in uniformity. Two

different methods have been adopted by the respective Valuers, but

neither of them has been able to properly explain the rationale behind

their respective methods. Even you being the Resolution Professional

have not provided any reason for accepting the said two valuation

reports which are ambiguous.

 82

While in the valuation report of M/s Kunal K. Vikamsey, Flats sold

under Barter transaction were considered but M/s Adroit Appraiser

and Research Pvt. Ltd. did not take the said flats in consideration.

Possibly the Resolution Applicants are also not clear about the issue,

due to which the Resolution Plans which are placed for voting have not

taken the same valuation for their respective Plans.

7.23. That during the CIRP, three Resolution Plans were received from

EKA Life Limited, Esgee Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and

Naman Developers Pvt. Ltd. The said Resolution Plans have been

modified from time to time and certain clarifications have also been

added by the respective Resolution Applicants. In the 9th COC

meeting held on 18.03.2023, all three Resolution Plans were put up

for voting (along with clarifications). Initially e-voting was fixed

between 20.03.2023 to 27.03.2023. Thereafter e-voting was extended

till 31.03.2023. In the e-voting the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s

Naman Developers Pvt. Ltd. was approved and the results of e-voting

is as follows:

Yes No Abstain Did not

attempt to
Vote

Total (%) 85.35 2.82 0 11.83 *

Count 7 1 0 1

* The Appellant Bank did not attempt to vote

 83

7.24. Thereafter, the Resolution Professional filed an interlocutory

application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan.

7.25. On 29.04.2023, the Appellant Bank filed I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in

C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019 before the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai praying for the following reliefs:

a) That all Resolution Applicants inter alia the successful

Resolution Applicant (Respondent No. 2 herein) be

directed to modify their Plan on receipt of fresh valuation

reports and fresh voting be ordered thereafter.

b) That Resolution Professional (Respondent No. 1 herein) be

directed to take necessary steps and include proper assets

of the CD to be valued at Project Swarajya.

c) That the valuation conducted by Mr. Kunal Kantilal

Vikamsey and M/s Adroit Appraisers and Research Pvt.

Ltd. be set aside as the same is fundamentally flawed and

against the requirements of Bankruptcy Code and

Regulations framed therewith.

d) That direction be issued to Resolution Professional to

carry out a fresh valuation of Project Swarajya exclusively

mortgaged with Applicant Bank.

e) That direction be issued to Respondent Nos. 11 and 12

being the Valuers to submit the blueprint of the Approved

 84

Plan for Swarajya Project as also the method by which the

Valuation have been carried over on the vacant land and

the status of Units constructed / yet to be completed in the

Project Swarajya.

f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present

Application in the interest of maximization of assets, the

approval of the Resolution Plan by the Hon’ble

Adjudicating Authority be deferred;

g) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present

Application Respondent No. 1 be restrained from taking

any major steps in CIRP of the CD.

h) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present

Application the voting result approving the successful

Resolution Plan be stayed

i) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper.

A true copy of the I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)

3794/MB/C-III/2019 dated 28.04.2023 and filed on 29.04.2023 by

the Appellant Bank alongwith the tabulated charts before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE – A/13. The Appellant had filed the plan for the

Project Swarajya and the Google Earth image along with their I.A.

No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019. A true copy

 85

of the plan for Project Swarajya and the Google Earth image is

annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/14 (COLLY).

7.26. The Respondent No.1, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.11 and

Respondent No.12 filed their reply to the aforesaid application filed

by the Bank. A true copy of the Reply dated NIL July 2023 filed by

the Respondent No.1 alongwith the documents annexed with the

same is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/15

(COLLY). A true copy of the Reply dated 25.08.2023 filed by the

Respondent No.11 alongwith the documents annexed with the same

is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/16 (COLLY). A

true copy of the Reply dated 28.08.2023 filed by the Respondent

No.12 alongwith the documents annexed with the same is annexed

hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – A/17 (COLLY).

7.27. The Respondent No. 12, the Appellant, and the Respondent No.1 also

filed additional affidavits before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,

Mumbai. The Appellant also filed a copy of the Plan approved and

certified by KDMC and further a valuation report dated 13.05.2024

prepared by their valuer. A true copy of the Additional Affidavit

dated 10.04.2024 filed by the Respondent No.12 alongwith the

documents annexed with the same is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE – A/18 (COLLY). A true copy of the Additional

Affidavit dated 13.05.2024 filed by the Appellant is annexed hereto

and marked as ANNEXURE – A/19. A true copy of the plan

 86

approved and certified by KDMC is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE – A/20. A true copy of the Valuation Report dated

13.05.2024 filed by the Respondent No.1 is annexed hereto and

marked as ANNEXURE – A/21.

7.28. On 23.08.2024, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai was pleased

to reserve orders in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)

3794/MB/C-III/2019.

7.29. On 21.01.2025, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai passed the

Impugned Order. The webcopy of the Impugned Order was uploaded

on 22.01.2025. The Appellant applied for the certified copy on

18.02.2025 and the same was provided on 21.02.2025. A true copy

of the application for certified copy dated 18.02.2025 submitted by

the Appellant is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE –

A/22.

7.30. While so, on 24.01.2025, the 10th Meeting of the Committee of

Creditors was held wherein the CoC inter alia resolved, by a majority

vote, to appoint one Mr. Prashant Pradeep Agarwal (M/s. Anmol

Sekhri Consultants Private Limited) as the third valuer for

determining the fair value and liquidation value of the Swarajya

Project. A true copy of the Minutes of the 10th Meeting of the

Committee of Creditors dated 30.01.2025 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE – A/23. A true copy of the Voting Results

dated 30.01.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

 87

– A/24. The Appellant has filed a separate application seeking

permission to place the above subsequent events and documents

(ANNEXURE – A/23 and ANNEXURE – A/24) on record.

7.31. Hence the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

8. BELOW ARE (8 (A)) FACTS IN ISSUE OR SPECIFY THE

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND (8(B) THE
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT ARISE FOR
CONSIDERATION IN THE APPEAL:

8. (A) FACTS IN ISSUE AND QUESTIONS OF LAW:

8.1 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erroneously held that there

was no material irregularity in preparing the Information

Memorandum.

8.2 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erroneously held that there

is no material deviation in the valuation reports of the CIRP Valuers

(Respondents No.11 & 12) while comparing with the Valuation

Report of the Appellant bank.

8.3 The valuation exercise carried out during CIRP is erroneous and not

on proper parameters.

8.4 That if proper valuation would have been made by both the CIRP

Valuers, the correct market price fair value and liquidation value

would have been arrived at for “Swarajya” project.

 88

8.5 The accuracy of valuation depends on the knowledge of the Valuer

and proper information about assets provided to him with appropriate

method of valuation put into usage by him.

8. (B) QUESTIONS OF LAW

8.6 Whether the Impugned Order is contrary to the provisions of the

Code and the Regulations made thereunder?

8.7 Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred in only “partly

allowing” I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-

III/2019?

8.8 Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred by failing to set aside

the valuations of Project Swarajya conducted by the CIRP Valuers

(Respondents No.11 and 12)?

8.9 Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by failing to set aside the

valuations conducted by the Respondent No.11 and 12 in respect of

Project Swarajya, and by giving numerous findings/observations at

paragraphs 60 to 63 of the Impugned Order, has impinged on, and

curtailed the scope of the fresh valuation to be conducted?

8.10 Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in holding

that there is no material irregularity in the preparation of the

Information Memorandum?

8.11 Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in holding

that there is no material deviation in the valuation reports of the CIRP

 89

Valuers (Respondents No.11 & 12) while comparing with the

Valuation Report submitted by the Appellant?

8.12 Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in holding

that Ld. Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the Respondent No.2

herein to modify their plan on receipt of fresh valuation reports and

for fresh voting to be ordered thereafter?

8.13 Whether the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside for non-

consideration of material facts, legal provisions, submissions and

documents on record?

8.14 Any other questions of law that may arise at the time of arguments,

for which the Appellant craves leave and liberty of this Hon’ble

Appellate Tribunal.

9. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

The Impugned Order is challenged on the following amongst other

grounds, taken without prejudice to each other:

9.1. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in only

“partly allowing” prayer “c” of the I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P.

No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019 in as much the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Mumbai failed to set aside the valuations conducted by

the Respondents No.11 and 12 in so far as the Project Swarajya was

concerned.
 90

9.2. BECAUSE by failing to set aside the valuations conducted by the

Respondent No.11 and 12, and by giving numerous

findings/observations at paragraphs 60 to 63 of the Impugned

Order, the Appellant apprehends that the newly appointed Valuer

may find his fresh valuation exercise curtailed by the numerous

observations and findings given by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,

Mumbai.

9.3. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in only

“partly allowing” the I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in C.P. No. (IB)

3794/MB/C-III/2019, and it is most respectfully and humbly

submitted that the Appellant’s aforesaid application ought to have

been kept pending in order to pass consequential directions based

on the exercise to be carried out by the newly appointed Valuer.

9.4. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in

holding that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the

Respondent No.2 herein to modify their plan on receipt of fresh

valuation reports and for fresh voting to be ordered thereafter. It is

submitted that the entire resolution plan of the Respondent No.2 is

assessed based on illegal and erroneous information memorandum

and valuations, and the resolution plan was incorrectly approved by

the CoC without all the relevant information and contrary to the

provisions of the Code and Regulations.

 91

The Appellant once again out of abundant caution reiterates that the

above grounds at paragraphs 9.1 to 9.4 are raised without prejudice

to the grounds raised hereinbelow challenging the findings given by

the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai regarding the Information

Memorandum and on the Valuations by the CIRP valuers

(Respondents No. 11 and 12).

9.5. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in

holding that there is no material irregularity in the preparation of the

Information Memorandum.

9.6. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai failed to

appreciate the numerous errors, material irregularities and

illegalities pointed out by the Appellant which go to the very root

of the matter, and vitiates the Information Memorandum prepared

in the present case.

9.7. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai failed to

appreciate that the information memorandum was not prepared with

full and correct details of assets/liabilities.

9.8. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai after finding

that the Information Memorandum states that Sector 2 of Swarajya

Project is only partially completed but no details of the partially

constructed units is given, however, thereafter contradictorily and

erroneously holds that there is no material irregularity on the part of

 92

the Resolution Professional in preparing the Information

Memorandum.

9.9. BECAUSE the Resolution Professional is not a mere rubber

stamping authority, but is required to exercise proper due diligence

and undertake proper verification of the assets/liabilities while

preparing the Information Memorandum, failing which the

Information Memorandum would be rendered defective, flawed and

vitiated, thereby having consequential adverse impact on the CIRP

of the Corporate Debtor.

9.10. BECAUSE the Information Memorandum (IM) is a critical

document during CIRP which gives the position regarding the

assets/liabilities, finances, creditors, litigations etc of the Corporate

Debtor, and preparation of the same is one of the primary duties of

the Resolution Professional as per section 25(2)(g) of the Code, and

the resolution plan is submitted on the basis of the Information

Memorandum.

9.11. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erroneously

relied upon the disclaimer provided in the Information

Memorandum. It is submitted that the purported disclaimer cannot

permit the Resolution Professional to violate the provisions of the

Code and the Regulations, and it is further submitted that the

purported disclaimer cannot efface the errors, irregularities and

illegalities in the Information Memorandum in the present case.

 93

Permitting the Resolution Professional to hide behind such

perfunctory disclaimers would defeat the provisions of the Code and

Regulations, and the duty imposed on the Resolution Professional.

9.12. BECAUSE the Information Memorandum states the following

respect of Project Swarajya:

Swarajya project consists of an area of about 26 acres which in turn has been

divided into two sectors Sector 1 and Sector 2. Sector 1 consists of 18 buildings

with 22 wings, whereas Sector 2 consists of 19 buildings with 27 wings. The

project is situated at Village Ambivali, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The survey

nos. of the land are 1/3, 2/3, 5, 6, 3/1, 2, 3, 74/8 to 12, 76/3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 24, 26,

27, 28p, 74/13, 15, 4/1 to 5, 4/6/2, 7 to 10, 12, 14, 5/1, 2, 76/8, 9, 10, 12 and 75.

All the buildings under this project are of G+5 to G+7 structures and Occupation

Certificate has been received for these buildings. Sector 1 buildings have been

fully completed and a total of 1160 units have been constructed, of which 1134

units have been sold and possession of 1074 units have been handed over. The

Company has entered into barter arrangements for 26 units for which underlying

agreements have not been made available. Possession of these units have also not

been handed over to the counter party. Sector 1 also consists of 55 shops of which

possession of 47 shops have been handed over.

Some of the buildings in Sector 2 are partially complete. A total of about 1530

units have been constructed, of which 1468 units have been sold and possession

of 590 units have been handed over. A total of 372 units are in completed stage

for which full money has been received and possession is yet to be handed over.

The Resolution Professional had approached COC for a decision to hand over

these units on “as is where is basis” and not accept claims from these unit holders.
 94

Since the COC did not take decision in this matter, the Resolution Professional has

filed IA with the Hon’ble NCLT, Mumbai seeking direction in this matter. The

matter is sub judice.

The Company has entered barter arrangements for 40 units for which

underlying agreements have not been made available. Possession of these units

have also not been handed over to the counter party. A total 21 units have been

provided as security to KDMC as payment was due to them. Sector 2 also consists

of 8 shops of which possession of 3 shops have been handed over.

The project has been given as a security against the loan taken from Central Bank

of India. The Resolution Professional has been advised by Central Bank of India

that they have given NOC for a total of 118 customers. The details of these NOCs

are not available with the Resolution Professional.

There were more than 154 bookings taken by the Company in Sector 2 (building

no. 21, 22A and 22B) and 922 bookings in building in Sector 2C and 2D. However,

the Company cancelled the construction plan, and these unit holders were

accommodated in the existing bookings, or the booking amount refunded. As there

were no instructions from the customers, a total of 47 bookings in Sector 2 and

109 bookings in Sector 2C and 2D are yet to be refunded or accommodated.

Further, the Company also received suo-moto cancellation notice from customers

for these building in the ‘Swarajya’ project, for which refund was not initiated. An

amount of Rs.68.46 lakhs to these 26 customers is due.

 95

9.13. BECAUSE the Resolution Plan states the following regarding

Project Swarajya:

Project location Swarajya

Land area ~26 Acres

Total Built-up area 82,966 sq.mt.

approved

Total saleable area Sector 1 : 4,46,355 sq.ft.

Sector 2 : 5,84,694 sq.ft.

Project configuration Sector 1 : 1,160 Residential, 55 shops

Sector 2 : 1,530 Residential, 14 shops

Unit configuration 1 BHK : 315 sq.ft.

(Saleable Area) 2 BHK : 523 sq.ft.

Approvals status Full occupation certificate for Sector 1 received.

Occupation Certificate for 151 residential units in Sector
2 pending.

Construction status RCC work for all towers completed

Minor finishing work for towers pending

Area sold 100% area sold *

9.14. BECAUSE it is evident from the above that the Respondent No.2

has considered the asset value of Project Swarajya as NIL.

9.15. BECAUSE in the year 2013 when the loan was sanctioned by the

Appellant Bank, the Commencement Certificate was issued only for

the following buildings:

 96

Building AO1 (G+7 Floors) 2 Wings Proposed

Building A03 (G+5) Proposed
Building A04 (G+7) Proposed
Building A05 (G+7) Proposed
Building B10 (G+7) Proposed
Both have failed to value the Units partially constructed
Both have failed to value common assets of CD and have individually
evaluated different assets with different methodology

Total saleable area:

Sector 1 484787 Sq.Ft.
Sector 2 692244 Sq.Ft.
Sector 2C 144685 Sq.Ft.
Total 1321716 Sq.Ft.

9.16. BECAUSE when the valuation was taken up by Appellant Bank (at

the time of sanctioning of loan) total unsold area for said project

was of 728112 Sq. ft. which was valued at Rs. 269 Crores. Thus, the

Resolution Professional’s stand that the flats have all been sold

(even prior to the disbursement of loan by Appellant Bank) is

incorrect.

9.17. BECAUSE the project ‘Swarajya’ is exclusively mortgaged with

the Appellant Bank and comprises of an extensive area of about 26

Acres and the same when converted into sq. mts./ sq.ft. is as below:

Acres Sq. Mtrs Sq. Ft.

1 4046.86 43560
Total 26 105218.36 1132560

Plots (60 sq. ft. x40

Acres sq.ft.)
1 18 Plots
Total 26 468 Plots
 97

Thus the project land of “Swarajya” is very extensive comprising of

105218 sq. mts. equivalent to 11,32,560 sq. ft. This means that there

are 468 plots in total with the standard size of 60 x 40 sq. ft.

9.18. BECAUSE the Resolution Professional has in the Information

Memorandum referred that project “Swarajya” is of two Sectors.

Sector 1 is fully completed (with a total of 1116 units) and Sector 2

is partially completed (with total of 1530 units already constructed).

Nowhere in the Information Memorandum there is any reference on

the number of units that is partially completed (even though

approved) and on which units any sale consideration have already

been received in part. The Resolution Professional, in Information

Memorandum (IM), referred that for 40 units under barter

arrangement, related agreements are not available with him. Further

Resolution Professional has shown in the Information

Memorandum, the outstanding yet to be received (by sale of units

in both Sectors):

(in Rupees)

Sr. No. Particulars Outstanding amount

1 Sector 1 Flats 2,98,84,257.48

2 Sector 1 shops 18,47,249
Total 3,17,31,506.74

3 Sector 2 Flats 6,37,79,008.72

4 Sector 2 Shops 5,62,424.54
Total 6,43,41,433.26

Grand Total 9,60,72,940.00

 98

9.19. BECAUSE the data furnished by the Resolution Professional in the

Information Memorandum establishes that an amount of Rs.

9,60,72,940.00/- is the balance yet to be recovered on the sale

transactions already completed. In the resolution plan though the

land area of project “Swarajya” is mentioned 26 Acres with regard

to the buildings constructed thereon it is stated that for 151

residential units OC is still pending. These number of units have

been left undealt with in the Valuation Report, Information

Memorandum as also in Resolution Plan.

9.20. BECAUSE in the present case, different approaches have been

adopted by both Valuers with regard to the Barter flats as also

KDMC flats. Thus, there is no common method of valuation on the

same assets as also there is no uniform approach adopted by both

Valuers. Moreover, there is no rationale behind the methods

adopted by both CIRP Valuers. Hence, the liquidation value as also

market value arrived at is erroneous. Therefore, the entire exercise

has to be set aside.

9.21. BECAUSE there are difference in the valuations methods of the

Project Swarajya and the valuers have made common errors:

S. No. Valuation of Mr. Kunal Valuation of M/s Adroit

Kantilal Vikamsey Appraisers and Research
Private Limited
 99

1 The value of Survey No. Value of land at Swarajya

76/5 have been given (as project have never dealt
only vacant land in Project with
“Swarajya”)

2 Barter flats (65 in Barter flats have never

numbers) have been valued been valued
(Rs. 7.99 Crores as fair
market value Rs.5.59
Crores as liquidation
value)

3 Total liquidation value Total liquidation value

arrived at for entire project arrived at project is only
is Rs. 8.39 Crores (on on valuation of KDMC
valuation of KDMC flats + flats (Rs. 2.21 Crores)
barter flats)(Rs. 2.80
Crores + Rs. 5.59 Crores)

4 Both have failed to value Vacant Land

9.22. BECAUSE the entire valuation exercise done on the assets of the

Corporate Debtor (particularly on the properties mortgaged with

Appellant Bank) is improper with grave infirmities which goes into

the root of the matter which affects the rights of all stakeholders and

the CIRP process.

9.23. BECAUSE both the Valuers evaluated the properties differently by

adopting different methods and further failing to value the actual

assets which have given rise to inaccurate and incorrect valuation

(ultimately leading to undervaluation of project assets) due to which

proper and legally permissible Resolution plans have not come

forward.

9.24. BECAUSE both the Valuers failed to value the vacant land which

could be exploited for development, Units which are partially

 100

completed but still has substantial intrinsic value as also FSI already

approved for project which still remains exploited. All this will

surely have empirical intrinsic value to assess the project which was

not properly evaluated.

9.25. BECAUSE in short the value of the property under construction as

also vacant land having huge value have been totally neglected by

both Valuers. The accuracy of valuation depends on the knowledge

of the Valuer and proper information about assets provided to him

with appropriate method of valuation put into usage by him.

9.26. BECAUSE the entire valuation exercise is hit by anomalies and

blatant errors and illegalities which have been committed by both

Valuers in evaluating the assets of Corporate Debtor. There is no

rationale behind the methods adopted by both CIRP Valuers. Hence

the liquidation value as also market value arrived at is erroneous. In

the interest of justice the entire exercise have to be set aside. The

details of properties/assets, parameters of calculation and the

modalities adopted are all erroneous.

9.27. BECAUSE the glaring infirmities / anomalies in the Information

Memorandum as also in the Valuation Report is furnished in the

tables herein below:

 101

Table 1: Details of Flats Sold and Unsold in Project Swarajya

Details of Flats According to According to According to

Information Annexure J to Valuation
Memorandum Information
Memorandum

A Total No. of Flats 3028 Only KDMC

B Shops 69 Flats of 23
numbers are
C A-B 2959
valued in the
valuation of
Sector 1 Flats 1160 1134 M/s Adroit
Sector 2 Flats 1468 1469 whereas
D Total 2628 2603 Barter Flats
of 65 numbers
also KDMC
flats of 23 are
valued by Mr.
Unsold Flats (C-D) 331 356 Kunal

Table 2: Details of Flats Sold / Registered in Sector I in Project

Swarajya
No.
Sr. of Amount Outstanding
No. Details Flats Received Amount
1 Flats Sold / Registered after 141 10,42,30,048.28 15,92,866.00
30.03.2013 (Date of
Mortgage)
2 Flats Sold / Registered after
22.09.2017 (Date of
SARFAESI Notice) 73 6,56,61,580.57 1,95,32,325.78
Total 214 16,98,91,628.85 2,11,25,191.78

Table 3: Details of Flats Sold / Registered in Sector II in Project

Swarajya
No.
Sr. of Amount Outstanding
No. Details Flats Received Amount
1 Flats Sold / Registered after 188 15,65,58,133.31 34,78,499.31
30.03.2013 (Date of
Mortgage)
2 Flats Sold / Registered after 92 8,00,22,164.62 1,17,08,729.71
22.09.2017 (Date of
SARFAESI Notice)
3 Flats Sold / Registered after 1 6,58,349.00 0.00
30.03.2013 (Date of
Mortgage) But Registration
 102

Date Not Given - only Year

(2016)

4 Flats Sold / Registered after 6 5,22,744.00 13,37,494.84

22.09.2017 (Date of
SARFAESI Notice) But
Registration Date Not Given
- only Year (2018)

5 Flats Sold after 22.09.2017

(Date of SARFAESI Notice)
But not registered 20 83,58,750.00 1,01,05,537.57
Total 307 24,61,20,140.93 2,66,30,261.43

Table 4: Summary of Flats Sold / Registered in Sector I and Sector

II of Project Swarajya

No.
Sr. of Outstanding
No. Details Flats Amount Received Amount Total Amount
1 Sector 1 214 16,98,91,628.85 2,11,25,191.78 19,10,16,820.63
2 Sector 2 307 24,61,20,140.93 2,66,30,261.43 27,27,50,402.36
521 41,60,11,769.78 4,77,55,453.21 46,37,67,222.99

Table 5: Summary of Flats Sold / Registered and Unsold in Project

Swarajya
Total No. of Flats Sold / Registered 521
Total No. of Flats Unsold 356
Total 877

9.28. BECAUSE on compilation of the information provided by the

Resolution Professional it is clear that an amount of

Rs.4,77,55,453.21 is yet to be received (as balance sale proceed) on

sale of 521 flats in Sector I & Sector II of Project Swarajya. This

has never been accounted / considered in the Information

Memorandum as also in the Resolution Plan (Refer Table No. 4).

 103

9.29. BECAUSE the unsold flats of 356 Units (which are partially

constructed in Sector II) has never been dealt in the Information

Memorandum / Valuation Report / Resolution Plan (Refer Table

No. 5).

9.30. BECAUSE even the information provided in the Information

Memorandum and its Annexures are not tallying with each other. In

the Information memorandum, the unsold flats / Units is shown as

331 whereas in Annexure J of Information Memorandum the unsold

flats are shown as 356 (Refer Table No. 1).

9.31. BECAUSE though the Resolution Professional and his Counsel (in

their legal opinion) have taken up a stand that many of the flats have

been sold prior to date of mortgage (30.03.2013), the details shown

in the Information Memorandum is contra to the said stand taken by

the Resolution Professional / their Advocate. Annexure J to the

Information Memorandum substantiates that 521 flats have been

sold / registered after the date of mortgage (Refer Table Nos. 2, 3

and 4).

9.32. BECAUSE it is shocking to observe that 191 flats have been sold /

registered after the issuance of SARFAESI Notice dated

22.09.2017. The said sale itself is invalid for the reason that the flats

remain under attachment from the said date (Refer Table Nos. 2 and

3).
 104

9.33. BECAUSE in fact for 7 flats shown in Information Memorandum,

exact registration date is not known and for 20 flats registration is

not done.

9.34. BECAUSE as the market value fair value and liquidation value

have not been properly arrived at by the CIRP Valuers, the

Resolution Plans submitted based on the said evaluations suffered

from serious infirmities / limitations prejudicing the interest of all

stakeholders.

9.35. BECAUSE if proper valuation would have been made by both the

CIRP Valuers, the market price/liquidation value arrived at for

“Swarajya” project would have been very huge to the benefit of all

stakeholders inter alia Appellant Bank herein.

9.36. BECAUSE the Information Memorandum of the Resolution

Professional, Valuation Report of both Valuers taken during CIRP

process and the Resolution Plan (along with clarifications offered)

have failed to address the following serious issues:

(i) Amount yet to be received in Sector 1 and Sector 2 to the

extent of Rs.46,37,67,222.99 in the Project “Swarajya” and

the proper treatment of the same in Resolution Plan.

(ii) The actual vacant land in the Project “Swarajya” (excluding

the land already used for construction / under construction)

which remains for further exploitation for the benefit of

Resolution Applicant.
 105

(iii) The actual number of flats which is yet to be completed /

under construction in Sector 2 and the valuation of the same.

9.37. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in the

comparisons of the Valuation report dated 13.05.2024 with

valuation reports given by the CIRP valuers. It is further submitted

that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in holding that

there is no material deviation in the valuation reports of the CIRP

Valuers (Respondents No.11 & 12) while comparing with the

Valuation Report. The Appellant craves leave and liberty to refer to

the three valuation reports at the time of hearing to demonstrate the

errors.

9.38. BECAUSE the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai erred in

holding that the Appellant had belatedly raised objections to the

valuation reports without appreciating the modus operandi in the

present matter adopted by the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent

No.2.

9.39. BECAUSE the Impugned Order is contrary to the statutory

provisions and the settled legal propositions and precedents.

9.40. BECAUSE the Impugned Order is unsustainable in law and the

same deserves to be set aside.

9.41. Any other ground as may be available to the Appellant for which

the Appellant crave leave to add, amend or delete the grounds at any
 106

time on or before the hearing of the matter, or that may arise at the

time of arguments.

10. MATTERS NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING WITH

ANY OTHER COURT:

The Appellant declares that they have not previously filed any writ

petition, suit, appeal, application or other proceedings regarding the

issues raised in the present Appeal, before any other Court or judicial

authority, nor is any such writ petition, suit or other proceeding,

pending before any Court or judicial authority.

11. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF(S) AND THE LEGAL PROVISIONS,

IF ANY RELIED UPON

The same grounds as set out in paragraph Nos. 9 above.

12. DETAILS OF INTERIM APPLICATION, IF ANY

PREFERRED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL

The Appellant has preferred the following interim applications:

(a) Condonation of delay in filing the appeal;

(b) Grant of ad-interim ex parte reliefs;

(c) Exemption from filing the typed copy of Annexures /

documents;

(d) Permission to place subsequent events and documents on

record.
 107

13. DETAILS OF APPEALS, IF ANY PREFERRED BEFORE

THIS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE SAME
IMPUGNED ORDER/DIRECTION, BY RESPONDENTS
WITH NUMBERS, DATES AND INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY
PASSED IN THAT APPEAL (IF KNOWN)

The Appellant has not preferred any other appeal before the Hon’ble

Appellate Tribunal against the same Impugned Order.

14. DETAILS OF INDEX

An Index containing the details of documents in chronological order

relied upon is enclosed herewith.

15. PARTICULARS OF FEE PAYABLE AND DETAILS OF BANK

DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI IN
RESPECT OF THE FEE FOR APPEAL

The Appellant has paid the Court Fees on Bharat Kosh and the receipt

for the same is enclosed alongwith the present Appeal.

16. LIST OF ENCLOSURE

The enclosures being relied upon by the Appellant in the present

Appeal have been marked as Annexures (in chronological order) in

paragraph 7 of the present Memorandum of Appeal. Details of such

 108

Annexures are contained in the index affixed on top of the present

Memorandum of Appeal.

17. WHETHER THE ORDER APPEAL AS COMMUNICATED IN

ORIGINAL IS FILED, IF NOT, EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR
NOT FILING THE SAME

The Impugned Order was passed on 21.01.2025, and the webcopy

was uploaded on 22.01.2025. The Appellant applied for the certified

copy on 18.02.2025 and the same was provided on 21.02.2025, and

the said original certified copy of the Impugned Order is filed

alongwith the present Appeal.

18. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS READY TO FILE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION/ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE
FIRST HEARING AFTER SERVING THE COPY OF THE
SAME ON RESPONDENT

The Appellant respectfully submits that due to paucity of time, and

the urgency involved in the present Appeal, the Appellant is unable

to file written submissions prior to the first date of hearing. However,

the Appellant is ready to file written submission/ arguments, if so

directed by this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.

19. WHETHER THE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

WITH ALL ENCLOSURES HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO
ALL RESPONDENTS AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, IF
SO, ENCLOSE POSTAL RECEIPT/COURIER RECEIPT IN
ADDITION TO PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED PROCESS FEE.
 109

The present Appeal has been served on the Respondents through e-

mail and the proof of service is enclosed along with the present

appeal.

20. ANY OTHER RELEVANT OR MATERIAL PARTICULARS/

DETAILS OF WHICH THE APPELLANT DEEMS
NECESSARY TO SET OUT:

The Appellant has stated all the material particulars up to this stage in

the averments and submissions above. The Appellant reserves their

right to bring subsequent happenings if any, to the notice of this

Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal at a later stage. The Appellant

respectfully submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the

present case, questions of law and grounds of appeal raises herein, the

Appellant has a strong case.

21. RELIEFS SOUGHT:

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in paragraph 7

above, the points in dispute and questions of law set out in paragraph

8, and the grounds of appeal set out in paragraph 9 above, it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal be pleased

to:

(a) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023

in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019 to the extent of the

 110

erroneous findings/conclusions at paragraphs 56, 60 to 63, and

66 to 67 (as elaborated in the grounds hereinabove), and

rejection of prayers (a), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of I.A. No. 2694 of

2023 in C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019;

(b) Stay the Impugned Order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai in I.A. No. 2694 of 2023 in

C.P. No. (IB) 3794/MB/C-III/2019, pending the hearing and

disposal of the present Appeal;

(c) Direct that the hearing and approval of the Resolution Plan by

the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai be deferred, pending

the hearing and disposal of the present Appeal;

(d) Alternatively, direct that all further steps taken in the CIRP of

the Corporate Debtor shall be subject to the final outcome of

the present Appeal, pending the hearing and disposal of the

present Appeal;

(e) Grant ex parte ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of Prayer

Clauses (b), (c) and (d) hereinabove; and

(f) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Appellate

Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the present case and in the interest of justice.

115 ANNEXURE - A/1
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
 151

ANNEXURE - A/2
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
 166
ANNEXURE - A/3
167
168
169
170
 171
ANNEXURE - A/4
172
173
 174
ANNEXURE - A/5
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
 236

ANNEXURE - A/6
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246