Best Taxation Lawyers Jaipur | GST Consultant Jaipur

1

• ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 188 of 2013
• BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR
  PRESENT- SHRI VIVEK SAXENA
• PRESIDING OFFICER
• O.A. NO. 188 OF 2013
• DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 18.05.2022
• ALCHEMIST ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.
• Having its Regd. Office at D-54, Defence Colony
  (First Floor), New Delhi-110024 through its Vice
  President.
• ..Applicant Bank
• VERSUS
• M/S. HOTEL GAUDAVAN PVT. LIMITED, Having its
• Reged. Office at C-22, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
  302021
• SHRI LOKENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/o. Shri Dilip
• Singh Rathore r/o D-9 Paschim Vihar, Vaishali
  Nagar, Jaipur 302021 Director Guarantor of M/s
  Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd.

2
OA No. 188/2013
2
Present Shri Akarsh Mathur along with Ms.
Jayshree Das Gupta Sh. Abhishek Saxena, Counsel
for the applicant Sh. Saurabh Jain, Ld. Counsel
for the Defendant No. 1, M/s Hotel Gaudawan Pvt.
Ltd. Sh. Sudeep Singh Hora alongwith Sh. Manish,
Counsel for Defendant No. 2, Sh. Lokendra Singh
Rathore Sh. Sarash Saini along with Sh. Puneet
Gupta, Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 3 Sh. R.K.
Salecha, Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 6,
Jitendra Singh Rathore, Smt. Arti Sharma, Counsel
for Defendant No. 8. None for Defendant No. 4, 5,
7 JUDGMENT This Original Application was filed
by the applicant bank on 21.07.2013 for recovery
of an amount of Rs. 396910137/- along with
pendent lite interest and future interest at the
contractual rate of 14.70 2 Penal Interest
P.A. with monthly rest against the defendants.
Defendant no. 1 is the principle borrower
and Defendant no. 2 to 7 are personal
guarantors. During the course of pendency of the
present Original Application the debts was
assigned by the applicant bank in favour of the
Alchemist Assets Reconstruction, on account of
an assigning deed executed between them on
20.03.2014 and so an I.A. no. 30.05.2014 was
filed for substitution of respondents, which was
allowed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated
09.04.2015.

3
OA No. 188/2013
3

• As per facts of the case, a term loan facility
  was sanctioned by State Bank of India, Jodhpur
  Branch for an amount of Rs. 25.00 Crore in favour
  of the Respondent no.1, out of this amount an
  amount of Rs.
• 1.00 Crore was sanctioned as credit limit and
  remaining amount sanctioned as medium term and
  the term loan was required to be paid in 27
  quarterly installments of the sectioned
  facilities, so issued vide letter at Exhibit A-3,
  original loan agreement is at Annexure A-4,
  agreement of hypothecation of goods and assets is
  at Annexure A-5, Agreement of pledge of goods and
  assets is at Annexure A-6, letter regarding grant
  of individual limit within overall limit at
  Exhibit A-7, letter of pledge in respect of
  machine accepted as security for advances is at
  Annexure A-8.
• Against the one credit facilities, following
  securities were also secured in order to secure
  the credit facilities.
• Equitable mortgaged was created by immovable
  property owned by defendant no. 1, situated at
  Kuri Road, Jaisalmer , bearing Khasra no. 72
  (Sale dated 21.03.2007 in favour of defendant
  no. 1) is at Exhibit -17 and sale deed in favour
  of previous owner of the subject property dated
  19.01.2005 is at Annexure A-18 and
  confirmation letter issued by the competent
  authority i.e. Collector, Jamabandi is at
  Annexure A-19 to A-29.
• Second charge over the companys properties i.e.
  land
• building situated at Hotel Complex Link Road,
  Jaisalmer (Hotel Fort Rajwada), State Bank of
  Bikaner and Jaipur having first charge over
  the property vide letter dated 21.03.2008,
  second charge was created in favour of applicant
  bank i.e. State Bank of India , which was
  recorded in ROC and the relevant documents are at
  Annexure A-31 to A-34.
• The guarantee deed was executed by Dilip Singh,
  Jitendra Singh Rathore Respondent no. 6,
  Harendra Rathore

4
OA No. 188/2013
4
Respondent no. 3 and Hanuvant Singh
Sakhawat, the documents are at Exhibit -14. On
account of death of Sh. Dilip Singh, Guarantee
Deed was executed by Defendant no. 2 to 7 on
27.12.2010 at Exhibit A-53, this guarantee Deed
was executed by the defendants for
repayment of full loan amount together with
interest cost, charges, expenses or any other
amount may be due in future. As per contentions
raised in the O.A. the guarantee is continue is
irrecoverable and guarantors confirms that
in balance conformation by borrower shall have
to be deemed to have been made on behalf of the
guarantors and shall be binding on them. As per
guarantee agreement, it was also agreed between
the parties that in case of litigation and
binding up and taken over the management of the
company, the repayment of any part of dues shall
be exhort the guarantor and guarantor will be
liable for recovery of the full amount due. As
the principle borrower failed to repay the loan
amount as per repayment schedule and default was
committed by the end of 2008 and so, the
erstwhile applicant i.e. State Bank of India
rescheduled the loan while its letter dated
16.01.2009 and as per rescheduled plan first
installment was to be paid on 31.03.2010.
However, the interest was required to be paid on
monthly basis but again the principal borrower
company defaulted in payment of the first
installment as per restructured plan. As the
principle borrower company defaulted in repayment
so, State Bank of India issued a legal notice on
11.11.2010 at Exhibit A-15 so remaining amount of
Rs. 254753588/-, due as on 31.01.2010 executed
interest due from 01.11.2010 onwards and response
to this legal notice defendant no. 1, requested
for six months time for repay the loan through
letter executed at Exhibit A-14, which was signed
by Sh. Jitendra Singh Rathore,

5
OA No. 188/2013
5

• Defendant no. 2, Lokendra Singh Rathore through
  Exhibit A-35 made similar request through letter
  dated 27.11.2010.
• Defendant issued various plans confirmation
  letters and sought time for payment which
  includes the communication at Exhibit A-47, A-46
  A-50 and Exhibit A- 49, A-83, A-86 A-87
• these are the letters which were written by the
  Defendants
• during the period 31.03.2022 to 11.10.2012, as
  the amount was not paid so, through letter dated
  28.07.2012 (Exhibit A-84), the applicant bank was
  issued notice of repayment of outstanding amount
  and then on 06.11.2012 issued a legal notice.
• Along with this Original Application statement of
  account under Bankers Book Evidence Act, at
  Exhibit A-91 is filed. Affidavit of Authorized
  officer who was authorized to file this O.A. is
  also field.
• Due to continuous defaults, SBI again issued
  letter dated 28.07.2012 requesting the Defendants
  to repay the outstanding (Exhibit A-84) and
  thereafter, issued legal notice dated
  06.11.2012(Exhibit A-66).
• So, on the above said developments, this OA was
  filed on 22.07.2013 by SBI demanding
  recovery of Rs. 39,69,10,137.88/- as on
  21.07.2013 alongwith pendente-lite and future
  interest at contractual rate i.e., 14.70 2
  penal interest per annum with monthly rest,
  against Defendant No. 1 as the principle borrower
  and Defendant No. 2 to 7 as personal guarantor.
  SBI also filed statement of account
  alongwith certificate under Section 2A of the
  Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 (Exhibit
  A-91). The statement of Account reflects
  outstanding as prayed for in the OA.

6
OA No. 188/2013
6

1. OA is supported with all documents as discussed
   above and are supported evidence by way of
   Affidavit of VK Saxena, Assistant General
   Manager SBI and Vivek Kumar Meena, Branch
   Manager, which were filed alongwith the OA.
2. As already stated above, during the pendency of
   OA the debt was assigned by SBI to AARC on
   20.03.2014 and accordingly AARC was substituted
   in place of SBI.
3. During the pendency of instant proceedings AARC
   preferred Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy
   Code, 2016 (IB) petition before Honble National
   Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) which was
   registered as (IB), 23 (TB)/2017. The Section 7
   petition was admitted vide order dated
   31.03.2017. The Resolution Professional as
   appointed by the NCLT, admitted an amount of
   Rs. 69.12 Crores as on 31.03.2017 as the
   outstanding due to AARC. Subsequently, Resolution
   Plan was approved by the NCLT vide its order
   dated 13.12.2017 (A-18 to reply of IA 843 /18).
   Under the Resolution Plan an amount of Rs. 42.50
   Crores was provided to be paid to AARC and the
   Resolution Plan clearly provides that the
   remaining amount is to be recovered from the
   Personal Guarantors i.e Defendants 2 to 7.
4. Under the Resolution Plan, entire debt of SBBJ
   has been admitted and provided to be paid in
   full.
5. As the Resolution Plan of the Principal Borrower
   Company i.e Defendant No. 1 has been
   approved and the amount so provided in the
   Resolution Plan is paid,Claimant i.e AARC is now
   pressing for issuance of final recovery
   certificate against Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 for
   the balance amount and no relief has been
   claimed against Defendant No. 1 and its assets,
   which is now represented by the new management.

7
OA No. 188/2013
7

• The Defendants have filed written statement.
  Written Statement has been filed by Defendant
  No. 6, Jitendra Singh Rathore and Defendant Nos.
  1 to 5 and 7, jointly.
• No evidence by way of Affidavit has been filed by
  any of the Defendants.
• Heard arguments and perused the record.
• Counsel for Defendant No. 1, now represented
  through the Resolution Applicant, supported the
  resolution plan and based on the terms of the
  resolution plan pressed that nothing can be
  recovered from Defendant No. 1 and the liability
  is now limited qua Defendant Nos. 2 to 7.
• Counsel for Defendant No. 3 and 6 separately
  addressed arguments, which were adopted by
  counsels for other remaining defendants, except
  Defendant No 4, 5 and 7, who pleaded no
  instructions at the last stage. However,
  Defendants have raised the following two issues,
  which are common.
• The main objections by the Defendant Nos. 2 to
  7were raised in IA no. 843 of 2018 in which after
  hearing arguments this Honble Tribunal vide
  order dated 21.02.2020 observed that these issues
  can be raised at the final hearing stage.
• First, the contention is that NPA
  classification by SBI (assignor of AARC) has
  been declared as null and void by this Tribunal
  and by Honble DRAT, New Delhi in SA
  Proceedings and therefore the assignment deed is
  void and thus the OA is not maintainable.
• Second, the contention is that in view of the
  Resolution Plan approved by the Honble NCLT,
  Delhi whereby Principal Debtor is discharged from
  its liability, no liability allegedly

8
OA No. 188/2013
8

• subsists qua the other Defendants and the
  guarantees allegedly stands discharged.
• In support of challenge classification of the
  account as NPA Ld. counsel for Defendant No. 3,
  Shri. Hrendra Singh Rathore argued that, in SA
  proceedings SARFAESI actions of AARC, has been
  decided by this Tribunal and NPA classification
  was found in violation of RBI guidelines(A-7 to
  IA no. 843 of 2018). The said order dated
  06.05.2015 passed in SA proceedings has been
  upheld by the Honble DRAT, Delhi vide its order
  dated 07.12.2015 (A-8 to IA no. 843 of 2018). It
  is further argued that Writ Petition preferred by
  the AARC was dismissed by the Honble Delhi High
  Court as infructuous vide order dated 05.07.2018
  (A-10 to IA no. 843 of 2018). It is therefore the
  claim of the Defendants that finding rendered by
  this Honble Tribunal has attained finality. It
  is further the contention that as the NPA
  classification is contrary to the RBI guidelines,
  the assignment in favour of AARC by SBI is also
  bad in law and therefore the instant OA is not
  maintainable and deserves to be rejected.
• In support of the above arguments that no claim
  exists against the Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 as
  Resolution Plan has been approved by NCLT, the
  contention is that it is settled law that if the
  principal borrowers is absolved from its
  liability, the other borrowers/ guarantors also
  stand absolved. In support of the said contention
  Ld. counsel has relied upon Section 133 134 of
  the Contract Act. The Defendants also relied upon
  a number of judgements in support of the said
  contention of discharged of surety under Section
  133 134 of the Contract Act. The Defendants
  have also relied upon Section 141 of the Indian
  Contract Act to contend that their right of
  subrogation

9
OA No. 188/2013
9

• has also extinguished and the same necessarily
  extinguishes their obligations.
• Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 3 further
  submitted that without a valid classification of
  accounts as NPA which order has not been
  interfered with by the High Court, and so the
  alleged assignee has no legal right and even the
  assignment is bad. It was further submitted that
  in terms of the order passed in SA proceeding,
  which was upheld in DRAT proceedings possession
  of the mortgaged assets was to be handed back to
  the original borrower, and the said order AARC
  has not complied with, till date. So, it was
  argued that O.A. is not maintainable.
• Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 3 further argued
  that under Contract Act once the Principal
  Borrower is absolved, so the guarantors
  automatically stands discharged and the same
  principle will apply in the given facts also as
  AARC is admittedly not claiming any amount
  from the principal borrower relying upon the
  Resolution Plan. It was further submitted that
  conduct of AARChas deprived the Defendants of
  their right to reclaim the recovered amount
  from the principal borrower and therefore, the
  same is also inviolation of Section 141 of the
  Contract Act.Based on these arguments it is
  prayed that no claim can continue against the
  remaining Defendants also and therefore, the OA
  is bad in law.
• These arguments have been supported and
  reiterated counsel for the Defendant No. 6 Mr.
  Salecha.
• It was further the submission of the Defendants
  that the Resolution Plan also specifically
  provides for withdrawal of all suit/proceeding
  against the principal borrower. Based on this

10
OA No. 188/2013
10

• clause of the Resolution Plan it is further the
  contention that once Resolution Plan was
  implemented, AARC was bound to withdraw the
  instant OA and if, any cause of action subsisted,
  it could have filed a fresh OA against
  the remaining Defendants. It is further
  contended that neither OA has been withdrawn nor
  the same has been amended to place on record
  subsequent development including deletion of
  Defendants No. 1 and therefore, the OA in its
  existing form is defective and no final order can
  be passed on the basis of the same.
• Thereafter, Ld. counsel of Defendant No. 3
  informed that Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 7 are
  relying on same arguments.
• Based on these arguments and submissions the
  Defendants have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
• Ld. counsel for AARC on the other hand contends
  that the issue of NPA classification of account
  as NPA is not relevant for adjudication of OA
  under Section 19 (1) and OA has been filed based
  on recall ofloan facility. It is further the
  contention that remedy under RDB Act and
  SARFAESI Act are independentof each other and
  operates in different spheres and distinct and
  precondition of one cannot be imposed on another.
  In support of the said arguments AARC has relied
  upon following judgments-

• Keshavlal Khemchand v. Union of India (2015) 4
  SCC 770 _at_Paragraphs, 31, 32 and 54,
• M/s Transcore vs Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC
  125, _at_ Paragraphs 68
• United Bank of India v. The Debts Recovery
  Tribunal, (1999) 4 SCC 69 _at_ paragraphs 15
• IV. State Bank of India v Charter Awadh
  Education Trust 2020 SCC Online DRAT 122 _at_
  paragraphs 6

III.

11
OA No. 188/2013
11

• Bank of India v Ajay Finsec Manu/DR/0037/2003 _at_
  Paragraphs 6
• O.P. Raphe Vs. IDBI Bank 2018 SCC Online DRT 7,
  DRT Ernakulam _at_ Paragraphs 4.3, 4.4
• It was further argued that since the
  classification of account as NPA on 28.06.2010
  till the assignment of debt i.e 20.03.2014,
  admittedly the borrower had only made a payment
  of Rs.2 Lacs. On the date of assignment of debt,
  the account of the Borrower was any ways remained
  as NPA as the borrower failed to make any
  payments thereafter. Furthermore even, on
  initiation of CIRP proceedings on 31.03.2017
  before Honble NCLT, Borrowers failed to clear
  the liability. It has been further stressed that
  is it is not the case of Defendant Nos. 2 to 7
  that the debt was repaid during the this period,
  and therefore, the claim is not maintainable.
• The Counsel for AARC has also relied up
  the NPA Classification Guidelines(A-6 to reply
  to IA no. 843 of 2018), Clause 11.2.4 to
  contend that despite restructuring on
  16.01.2009(A-2 to reply to IA no. 843 of 2018)
  there was no satisfactory performance on
  completion of specified period.
• The Counsel for AARC further submitted that
  after restructuring, the first instalment of
  interest became due on 30.01.2009 and the account
  continued to remain irregular since June, 2009.
  Interest due on 28.02.2010 remained unpaid for 90
  days and on completion of said period on
  29.05.2010 an amount of Rs.4,74,104/- remained
  unpaid. The principal instalment after
  re-schedulement was due on 31.03.2010, i.e. one
  year from the date of restructuring however, the
  same remained unpaid. Thus, on expiry of
  specified period on

12
OA No. 188/2013
12

• 31.01.2010, there was clear default in payment of
  principal and interest due as per original loan
  terms and thus there is no merit in the challenge
  to NPA classification.Further, as per RBI
  Circular if there is a default in the payment of
  the restructured account, then the NPA would be
  considered that as from the original date of
  default which in the instant case would be from
  2008. In this regard AARC has relied upon the
  statement of SBI filed alongwith the OA and the
  statement reflecting default of more than 90 days
  (A-4 and A-5 to reply to IA no. 843 of 2018). It
  is further the contention that the debt and
  default is admitted in the documents / letters
  filed in the OA and also in the written
  statement.
• It was further argued that that the orders passed
  by the Honble DRT and Honble DRAT were
  challenged by AARC before the Honble Delhi High
  Court by way of Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 11814 of
  2015). Further it is submitted that the
  Defendants had during the pendency of the
  aforesaid petition, forcefully taken back the
  possession of the secured assets. When the said
  fact was brought to the notice of the Honble
  Delhi High Court, vide order dated 05.01.2016
  directed the Defendants that the possession of
  the said property be restored. Thereafter when
  the possession was restored the Honble High
  Court vide order dated 19.01.2016 directed that
  the status quo shall be maintained and vide order
  dated 14.12.2016permitted AARC to issue a fresh
  notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI
  Act(A-9 to reply to IA no. 843 of 2018).
• It is further argued that in terms of the order,
  dated 14.12.2016 AARC issued fresh notice
  under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on
  01.02.2017(A-10 to reply to IA no. 843 of 2018)
  and without prejudice to the classification of
  NPA by SBI on 28.06.2010 AARC declared the
  account as NPA on

13
OA No. 188/2013
13

• 30.06.2015 w.e.f. 29.06.2010. The contention
  is that this establishes that the Honble High
  Court, on the basis of the documents and
  pleadings prima facie accepted the contentions of
  AARC.
• In view of the Resolution Plan sanctioned by
  Honble NCLT the Honble High Court disposed off
  the writ vide order dated 05.07.2018 recording
  that now the said issue has become academic but
  also with liberty to the AARC to approach again
  if so required. As such, the contentions of the
  Defendants that the issue of NPA declaration
  has become final is misconceived, self serving
  and incorrect.
• It has also been argued that similar objections
  with respect to NPA, assignment of debt were
  raised by the Defendants before the Honble NCLT
  in Section 7 IBC Petition preferred by AARC and
  the same were rejected by the Honble NCLT vide
  order dated 31.03.2017 (A-12 to reply to IA no.
  843 of 2018). The Defendants had also filed a
  Writ Petition challenging the vires of various
  provisions of IBC and in consequence thereof the
  order dated 31.03.2017 before the Honble High
  Court Judicature, Jaipur,and the Honble Jaipur
  High Court vide order dated 06.07.2017 admitted
  the Writ Petition only on the issue of challenge
  to vires of IBC which was finally dismissed on
  15.07.2019 but refused to grant any stay of the
  order dated 31.03.2017 (A-13 to reply to IA no.
  843 of 2018). The said order of the High Court
  was challenged by the Defendants before the
  Honble Supreme Court and vide order dated
  26.04.2017 the said SLP was dismissed by
  the Honble Supreme Court. (A-14 to reply to IA
  no. 843 of 2018). It is also brought to the
  notice that the Defendants thereafter
  challenged the order dated 31.03.2017 before the
  Honble NCLAT in an Appeal and the Appeal was
  dismissed as

14
OA No. 188/2013
14

• withdrawn with no liberty to challenge the
  order dated 31.03.2017 vide order dated
  17.07.2017 (A-17 to reply to IA no. 843 of 2018).
  Thus it was contented that the order dated
  31.03.2017 had attain finality.
• It is further the argued that the Resolution Plan
  as approved by the NCLT has attained finality as
  the challenge to the same before Honble NCLAT
  and Honble Supreme Court was dismissed vide
  orders dated 29.10.2018 (A-21 to reply to IA no.
  843 of 2018) and 05.03.2019 (A-23 to reply to IA
  no. 843
• of 2018).
• The counsel has also placed on record judgement
  passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in
  the matter of Committee of Creditors ofEssar
  Steel India Ltd, through Authorized Signatory
  Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC
  531, wherein it was clearly held that Resolution
  Plan once sanctioned is binding on all, including
  the guarantors. The Honble Supreme Court also
  relied upon its judgment in the matter of State
  Bank of India Vs. Ramakrishnan 2018(9) SCALE 597
  to hold that the plan may exclude provision as to
  payments to be made by such guarantor and Section
  133 of the Contract Act will not apply. AARC has
  also relied upon Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of
  India Ors. (2021) SCC Online SC 396,which held
  that approval of Resolution Plan, will not
  discharge the guarantors.
• The Applicant has specifically relied upon
  the following judgments in support of the
  contentions that discharge of principal borrower
  under Insolvency Law of Company Law would not
  absolve the Personal Guarantors
• IN STATE BANK OF INDIA VS V RAMAKRISHNAN ORS.
  (2018) 17 SCC

15
OA No. 188/2013
15
394, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
PARAGRAPH 24-25 22. Section 31 of the Act was
also strongly relied upon by the Respondents.
This Section only states that once a Resolution
Plan, as approved by the Committee of Creditors,
takes effect, it shall be binding on the
corporate debtor as well as the guarantor. This
is for the reason that otherwise, under Section
133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any change
made to the debt owed by the corporate debtor,
without the suretys consent, would relieve the
guarantor from payment. Section 31(1), in fact,
makes it clear that the guarantor cannot escape
payment as the Resolution Plan, which has been
approved, may well include provisions as to
payments to be made by such guarantor. This is
perhaps the reason that Annexure VI(e) to Form 6
contained in the Rules and Regulation 36(2)
referred to above, require information as to
personal guarantees that have been given in
relation to the debts of the corporate 23
debtor. Far from supporting the stand of the
Respondents, it is clear that in point of fact,
Section 31 is one more factor in favour of a
personal guarantor having to pay for debts due
without any moratorium applying to save him. IN
LALIT KUMAR JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA ORS (2021
SCC ONLINE SC 396, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD
THAT PARAGRAPH 133, 136 It is therefore, clear
that the sanction of a resolution plan and
finality imparted to it by Section 31 does not
per se operate as a discharge of the
guarantor's liability. As to the nature and
extent of the liability, much would depend on the
terms of the guarantee itself. However, this
court has indicated, time and again, that an
involuntary act of the principal

16
OA No. 188/2013
16

• debtor leading to loss of security, would not
  absolve a guarantor of its liability. In
  Maharashtra State Electricity Board (supra) the
  liability of the guarantor (in a case where
  liability of the principal debtor was discharged
  under the insolvency law or the Company law), was
  considered. It was held that in view of the
  unequivocal guarantee, such liability of the
  guarantor continues and the creditor can realize
  the same from the guarantor in view of the
  language of Section 128 of the Contract Act as
  there is no discharge under Section 134 of that
  Act.
• In view of the above discussion, it is held that
  approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto
  discharge a personal guarantor (of a corporate
  debtor) of her or his liabilities under the
  contract of guarantee. As held by this court, the
  release or discharge of a principal borrower
  from the debt owed by it to its creditor,
  by an involuntary process, i.e. by operation of
  law, or due to liquidation or insolvency
  proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor
  of his or her liability, which arises out of an
  independent contract.
• It was further argued by AARC, that since the
  admission order passed by NCLT on 31.03.2017 and
  the order approving the resolution plan
  13.12.2017 have attain finality in light of the
  orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court,
  wherein the issues regarding NPA and
  assignment of debt had been challenged by
  the Defendants, thus the same cannot be
  questioned again in the instant proceedings.
• It was further argued that the claim filed by the
  AARC and admitted by the Resolution Professional
  as on 31.03.2017 was Rs. 69.12 Crore which has
  also attain finality in view of the submissions
  made hereinabove. Thus this Tribunal is now to

17
OA No. 188/2013
17

• consider the instant OA by taking into
  account amount admitted under the CIRP of the
  Principal Borrower as the amount claimed as on
  31.03.2017 and provide interest on contractual
  rates, thereafter. It is further submitted that
  the amount received under the Resolution Plan of
  Rs. 42.50 Crores by the AARC may be adjusted with
  the interest and portion the balance amount, left
  thereafter with the principal amount.
• It was further the argued that borrowers also
  challenged the Deed of Assignment executed
  between AARC and SBI and sought a declaration
  that the same be declared as null and void by way
  of Civil Suit. The suit filed before Senior Civil
  Judge, Jodhpur was registered as Suit No. 194 of
  2015. The same was subsequently dismissed as
  withdrawn vide order dated 05.02.2019(A-22 to
  reply to IA no. 843 of 2018). The said argument
  is already decided by the Honble Supreme Court
  in the matter of APS Star wherein it was held
  that borrower cannot challenge the Assignment
  Deed.
• On the issue of the grounds of the Defendants
  that Personal Guarantor stand discharged in view
  of approval of Resolution Plan which absolves the
  principal borrower, it is the contention for the
  counsel of AARC that Resolution Plan provides for
  payment plan to cover part debt of AARC, to the
  extent of 61.49 as on 31.03.2017 which is
  Rs.42.50 Crores. Clause (f) at internal Pg. 7 of
  the Resolution Plan clearly provides that AARC
  to recover the balance dues by enforcement
  of personal guarantee / corporate guarantee and
  other third party collaterals as it is entitled
  to as per law. It is the contention that the
  Resolution Plan is binding on all concerned
  including the guarantors, in terms of Section
  31(1) and 238 of IBC and as such the Defendants
  cannot take a contentions that they are absolved
  of their obligations on approval of the

18
OA No. 188/2013
18

• Resolution Plan but on the contrary in view of
  binding nature of the Resolution Plan, the
  Defendants are obliged and duty bound to repay
  the debt to the AARC.
• The Resolution Plan records that the outstanding
  of AARC as on 31.03.2017 is Rs. 69.12 Crores and
  the Resolution Plan provides for the payment of
  Rs. 42.50 Crores out of the outstanding as on
  31.03.2017. It is submitted that the said amount
  is already received by the AARC.(A-8 to reply to
  IA 843 of 2018)
• Ld. Counsel for the AARC has also stressed upon
  the conduct of the Defendants and argued that the
  defendants are not only chronic defaulters but
  are also hindering the due process of law and in
  support thereof various observations made in
  orders passed by Honble NCLT, Honble NCLAT and
  Honble Supreme Court have been relied upon and
  placed on record along-with the reply to the IA.
  The reliance is placed on the orders passed by
  the Honble NCLT, NCLAT and Honble Supreme
  Court, wherein costs were imposed on the
  Defendants for not following the orders. The
  Honble Supreme Court had also in the order dated
  23.10.2017 had observed the conduct of the
  Ex-Management of the Principal Borrower i.e
  Defendants which reads as The facts of the
  present case disclose a very sorry state of
  affairs
• Heard arguments in details and perused the record
  carefully and findings are as under-.
• On the issue of classification of account as NPA
  - It is important to note at the outset that it
  is not the case of the Defendants that in or
  around 28.06.2010 (NPA classification date),
  payments were made and there was no
  irregularity on the date of proceeding under

19
OA No. 188/2013
19

• SARFEASI Act. Statement of account has been
  produced, which established that no payments were
  made. In fact, until the stage of initiation of
  CIRP on 31.03.2017 no payments were made, thus
  for 7 years from the date of NPA classification,
  defaults continued till the admission of the
  Petition u/s 7 of IBC and even thereafter.
• 40. Furthermore, as per NPA classification
  guidelines in case of restructuring are clear and
  the reading of clause 11.2.4 clearly stablished
  that in view of continued defaults, the
  NPA classification cannot be questioned. In this
  regard, the relevant clauses of RBI guidelines
  are reproduced-
• 11.2 Asset Classification
• The accounts classified as
• standard asset" should be immediately re-
  classified as sub-standard assets" upon
  restructuring.
• The non-performing assets, upon
• restructuring, would continue to have the
  same asset classification as prior to
  restructuring and slip into further lower asset
  classification categories as per extant asset
  classification norms with reference to the pre-
  restructuring repayment schedule.
• ..
• In case, however, satisfactory performance
  after the specified period is not
• evidenced, the asset classification of the
  restructured account would be governed as per
  the applicable prudential norms with

20
OA No. 188/2013
20

• reference to the pre-restructuring payment
  schedule.
• Specified Period
• Specified Period means a period of one year from
  the date when the first payment of interest
  or installment of principal falls due
• under the terms of restructuring package.
• Satisfactory Performance
• Non-Agricultural Term Loan Accounts
• In the case of non-agricultural term loan
  accounts, no payment should remain overdue for a
  period of more than 90 days. In addition there
  should not be any overdues at the end of the
  specified period.
• In para above the details of default and
  calculation of 90 day as submitted by the counsel
  for AARC is reproduced which remained
  un-rebutted as Defendants have failed to prove
  making of payments during this period.
  Furthermore, the Honble Delhi High Court vide
  order dated 05.07.2018 granted liberty to AARC to
  issue fresh Section 13(2) SARFEASI Act notice,
  which was issued on 01.02.2017 declaring the
  account as NPA on 30.06.2015 w.e.f. 29.06.2010.
  Admittedly, this also remained un-rebutted. In
  view of this there is no iota doubt that the
  account was irregular and NPA much before the
  filing of the OA and assignment of debt by SBI to
  AARC.
• It is also relevant to note here that Defendants
  have been unsuccessfully raising similar
  issues before various Courts/Tribunals. Similar
  issue of NPA classification and assignment of
  debt were raised before Honble NCLT Delhi,

21
OA No. 188/2013
21

• opposing the Section 7 IBC petition. After
  consideration of the same, the objection was
  rejected and Section 7 petition was admitted vide
  order dated 31.03.2017. Appeal challenging the
  said order before the Honble NCLAT, New
  Delhi was withdrawn without liberty as recorded
  in the order dated 17.07.2017. Subsequently,
  resolution plan was approved by the Honble NCLT,
  New Delhi vide order dated 13.12.2017, which was
  upheld by the Honble NCLAT, New Delhi vide order
  dated 29.10.2018 and by the Honble Supreme Court
  vide order dated 05.03.2019. Therefore, on this
  ground also the issue raised is meritless and
  therefore, rejected.
• I also find force in the submission of the
  counsel for the Applicant that classification of
  NPA is not a pre-condition for filing of OA under
  Section 19 (1) of the RDB Act.
• In view of the above, I find no merit in the
  contentions qua maintainability of this O.A,
  merely on the ground of classification of
  account as NPA.
• The second contention of the Defendants is also
  devoid of merits. In view of the law reiterated
  by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of
  Lalit Kumar Jain (supra) and Essar Steel
  (supra)sanction of Resolution Plan does not
  result in absolving the personal and corporate
  guarantors from their liability. In view of the
  judgements of the Honble Supreme Court, it is
  settled law that process of absolving of
  Principal Borrower by Operation of law under
  Insolvency Law or Company Law will not
  automatically result in absolving of personal
  guarantors, which ratio is directly applicable
  to the given facts and therefore, no further
  discussion is required on the said issue.
• The objection is further meritless as admittedly,
  the Resolution Plan does not provide for full and
  final clearance of entire dues

22
OA No. 188/2013
22
and only covers part of the debt of AARC. Further
AARCs right to recover the balance amount
from the Personal Guarantors is clearly
provided for under the Resolution Plan. The said
Resolution Plan which was approved by the Honble
NCLT, was also upheld by the Honble NCLAT and
Honble Supreme Court of India. Admittedly,
defendants in the instant OA had approached
Honble NCLAT and Honble Supreme Court of India
challenging the Resolution Plan. As the plan has
already attained finality and clause (f) at Page
No.7 of the Resolution Plan is an integral part
of the plan, even on merits the said contention
deserves to be dismissed. On this issue the
judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel for applicant
are required to be discussed as under-
III.
Resolution Plan under Insolvency Bankruptcy
Code is binding upon the Corporate Debtor and
Secured Creditor can still continue recovery
proceedings against the Guarantor
1. In State Bank of India Vs V RamakrishnanOrs
(2018) 17 SCC 394, the Honble Supreme Court held
that Paragraph 24- 25 The scheme of Section
60(2) and (3) is thus clear the moment there is
a proceeding against the corporate debtor pending
under the 2016 Code, any bankruptcy proceeding
against the individual personal guarantor will,
if already initiated before the proceeding
against the corporate debtor, be transferred to
the National Company Law Tribunal or, if
initiated after such proceedings had been
commenced against the corporate debtor, be filed
only in the National Company Law Tribunal.
However, the Tribunal is to decide such
proceedings only in accordance with the
Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 or the
Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, as the case may
be. It is clear that sub-section (4), which
states that the Tribunal shall be vested with all
the powers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as
contemplated under Part III of this Code, for the
purposes of sub-section (2), would not take
effect, as the Debt Recovery Tribunal has not
yet been empowered to hear bankruptcy
proceedings against individuals under Section
179 of the Code, as the said Section has not yet
been brought into force. Also, we have seen that
Section 249, dealing with the consequential
amendment of the Recovery of Debts Act to empower
Debt Recovery Tribunals to

23
OA No. 188/2013
23

• try such 22 proceedings, has also not been
  brought into force. It is thus clear that Section
  2(e), which was brought into force on 23.11.2017
  would, when it refers to the application of the
  Code to a personal guarantor of a corporate
  debtor, apply only for the limited purpose
  contained in Section 60(2) and (3), as stated
  hereinabove. This is what is meant by
  strengthening the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
  Process in the Statement of Objects of the
  Amendment Act, 2018. 22. Section 31 of the Act
  was also strongly relied upon by the Respondents.
  This Section only states that once a Resolution
  Plan, as approved by the Committee of Creditors,
  takes effect, it shall be binding on the
  corporate debtor as well as the guarantor. This
  is for the reason that otherwise, under Section
  133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any change
  made to the debt owed by the corporate debtor,
  without the surety"s consent, would relieve the
  guarantor from payment.
• Section 31(1), in fact, makes it clear that the
  guarantor cannot escape payment as the Resolution
  Plan, which has been approved, may well include
  provisions as to payments to be made by such
  guarantor. This is perhaps the reason that
  Annexure VI(e) to Form 6 contained in the
  Rules and Regulation 36(2) referred to above,
  require information as to personal guarantees
  that have been given in relation to the debts of
  the corporate 23 debtor. Far from supporting the
  stand of the Respondents, it is clear that in
  point of fact, Section 31 is one more factor
  in favour of a personal guarantor having to
  pay for debts due without any moratorium applying
  to save him.
• In Lalit Kumar Jain Vs Union of India Ors (2021
  SCC Online SC 396, the Honble Supreme Court held
  that Paragraph 133, 136
• It is therefore, clear that the sanction of a
  resolution plan and finality imparted to it by
  Section 31 does not per se operate as a discharge
  of the guarantor's liability. As to the nature
  and extent of the liability, much would depend on
  the terms of the guarantee itself.
• In view of the above discussion, it is held that
  approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto
  discharge a personal guarantor (of a corporate
  debtor) of her or his liabilities under the
  contract of guarantee. As held by this court, the
  release or discharge of a principal borrower from
  the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an
  involuntary process, i.e. by operation of law,
  or due to liquidation or insolvency
  proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor
  of his or her liability, which arises out of an
  independent contract.
• In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India
  Ltd through Authorized Signatory Vs Satish Kunar
  Gupta Ors (2020) 8 SCC 531, the Honble Supreme
  Court of India held that Paragraph 105, 106

24
OA No. 188/2013
24
Section 31(1) of the Code makes it clear
that once a resolution plan is approved by the
Committee of Creditors it shall be binding on all
stakeholders, including guarantors. This is for
the reason that this provision ensures that the
successful resolution applicant starts running
the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh
slate as it were. In State Bank of India v. V.
Ramakrishnan, 2018 (9) SCALE 597, this Court
relying upon Section 31 of the Code has
held 22. Section 31 of the Act was also
strongly relied upon by the Respondents. This
Section only states that once a Resolution Plan,
as approved by the Committee of Creditors, takes
effect, it shall be binding on the corporate
debtor as well as the guarantor. This is for
the reason that otherwise, Under Section 133
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any change made
to the debt owed by the corporate debtor, without
the surety's consent, would relieve the guarantor
from payment. Section 31(1), in fact, makes
it clear that the guarantor cannot escape
payment as the Resolution Plan, which has been
approved, may well include provisions as to
payments to be made by such guarantor. This is
perhaps the reason that Annexure VI(e) to Form 6
contained in the Rules and Regulation
36(2) ...referred to above, require information
as to personal guarantees that have been given in
relation to the debts of the corporate debtor.
Far from supporting the stand of the
Respondents, it is clear that in point of fact,
Section 31 is one more factor in favour of a
personal guarantor having to pay for debts due
without any moratorium applying to save
him. Following this judgment, it is
difficult to accept Shri Rohatgi"s argument
that that part of the resolution plan which
states that the claims of the guarantor on
account of subrogation shall be extinguished,
cannot be applied to the guarantees furnished
by the erstwhile directors of the corporate
debtor. So far as the present case is concerned,
we hasten to add that we are saying nothing which
may affect the pending litigation on account
of invocation of these guarantees. However,
the NCLAT judgment being contrary to Section
31(1) of the Code and this Court"s judgment in
State Bank of India (supra), is set aside. 47.
No arguments have been advanced by the Defendants
on the merits of the OA claim and there is no
challenge to execution of guarantee deeds. The
witnesses of the Applicant have fully
corroborated the averments in the OA. Even
otherwise the whole case is based on documents
and the witnesses have fully proven all the
documents. On careful perusal of the documents
filed and exhibited with the OA and duly
supported with the

25
OA No. 188/2013
25
documents, AARC has been successful in
establishing its claim as prayed for in para 6 of
the OA and the same is accordingly allowed. IV.
Ld. Counsel for the AARC alongwith the Written
Submission has placed on record updated
statement of account after adjustment of amount
received under the resolution plan, which is
reproduced hereinbelow
Period Amount
Upto 21.07.2013 (date of filing of the OA) Rs. 39,69,10,137.88/-
Upto 31.03.2017 (alongwith contractual rate of interest, forming part of the resolution plan approved by NCLT) Rs. 69,12,00,000.00/-
Minus amount received under the resolution plan on 13.12.2017 Rs. 42,50,00,000.00/-
Outstanding as on 13.12.2017 after the adjustment of the amount received Rs. 26.62 Crores Outstanding as on 13.12.2017 after the adjustment of the amount received Rs. 26.62 Crores
V. On the basis of documents, so filed this
Tribunal is inclined to grant contractual rate of
interest as in case of a commercial transaction
rate of interest is agreed upon between the
parties and therefore there is no reason to alter
the agreed contractual terms. It has been
repeatedly held that defaulters should not be
given a premium by reducing the rate of interest
as against Debtor who is diligent and is
regular in payment of instalments. In fact
against defaulters the lenders have to take legal
steps for recovery and therefore, defaulting
party cannot have benefit of lesser rate of
interest. In this regard reliance is placed on
Indian Bank vs. Blue Jaggers States Ltd. (2010) 8
SCC 129 and Punjab Financial Corporation vs Surya
Auto Industries (2010) 1 SCC 297.

26
OA No. 188/2013
26
VI. Another reason for awarding contractual
rate of interest is arising of the record placed
by the parties in IA No. 843 of 2018 by way of
Application, Reply and Written Submission. The
same establish that the Defendants conduct has
been misleading and malicious. Defendants at no
stage made any attempts to clear the outstanding
and initiated various legal proceedings, raising
similar issues, which have been rejected by the
Honble Supreme Court, NCLAT and NCLT.
As such the amount of Rs. 39,69,01,137.88/- as
claimed is payable by Defendant Nos. 2 to 7
jointly and severally alongwith pendente-lite
and future interest. This Tribunal is inclined to
grant the same at contractual rate of interest
i.e. 14.70 per annum w.e.f. 21.07.2013till the
date of actual realization subject to adjustment
of an amount of Rs. 42.50 crores which is
already received by AARC under
the Resolution Plan as on 13.12.2017.
VII.
VIII. The table below shows the amount to
be recovered by applicant AARC from Defendants
No. 2 to 7.
Suit Filed Amount as on 21.07.2013 Rs. 39,69,01,137.88
Interest _at_ 14.70 p.a from 21.07.2013 to 13.12.2017 Rs. 25,67,21,477.00
TOTAL Rs. 65,36,31,614.88
(Less amount received under the Resolution Plan) (-) Rs. 42,50,00,000.00
Balance amount to be recovered as on 13.12.2017 Rs. 22,86,31,614.88
IX. In the light of the above discussion the
Original Application deserves to be allowed
against Defendant Nos. 2 to 7.
The OA is allow and Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 are
held liable to pay to the Applicant/AARC
jointly and severally a sum of Rs.
22,86,31,614.88 as on
I.

27
OA No. 188/2013
27
13.12.2017 alongwith pendente-lite and future
interest
at contractual rate i.e. 14.70 per annum from
13.12.2017 till the date of actual realization,
within a period 30 days failing which the
same shall be recovered through sale of
already identified and attached and other
assets of Defendant Nos. 2 to 7. The cost of
litigation of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs shall also be paid
by the Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 to the
Applicant/AARC. Recovery Certificate be issued
forthwith and be send to the Recovery
Officer. IV. The attachment order dated
21.02.2020 qua the properties of Defendants
mentioned in IA Nos. 176 of 2017 and 134 of 2017
will continue and the Recovery Officer shall
proceed with taking steps for the sale of the
said properties for the recovery of the
outstanding dues. Parties are directed to appear
before the Recovery Officer on 04.07.2022. VI.
Copy of judgment and recovery certificate be send
to all parties free of cost. File be consigned to
record room.
II.
III.
V.
VII.
(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Jaipur Order pronounced in the open
court today i.e. 18.05.2022.
(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Jaipur
Place-Jaipur Dated-18.05.2022

28
OA No. 188/2013
28

• BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR
  PRESENT- SHRI VIVEK SAXENA
• PRESIDING OFFICER
• O.A. NO. 188 OF 2013
• DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 18.05.2022
• RECOVERY CERTIFICATE
• (UNDER SUB Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts
  due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993
  (Act 51 of 1993)
• ALCHEMIST ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.
• Having its Regd. Office at D-54, Defence Colony
  (First Floor), New Delhi-110024 through its Vice
  President.
• ..Applicant Bank
• VERSUS
• M/S. HOTEL GAUDAVAN PVT. LIMITED, Having its
• Reged. Office at C-22, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
  302021

29
OA No. 188/2013
29

• STATE BANK OF BIKANER JAIPUR, Industrial
• Finance Branch, IInd Floor, Tambi Towers,
  S.C. Road through its Assistant General Manager.
• Defendants.
• Recovery Certificate for Rs. 22,86,31,614.88/-
• In terms of final order dated 18.05.2022 passed
  by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case, it
  is ordered that the-
• The OA is allow and Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 are
  held liable to pay to the Applicant/AARC
  jointly and
• severally a sum of Rs. 22,86,31,614.88 as on
  13.12.2017 alongwith pendente-lite and future
  interest

at contractual rate i.e. 14.70 per annum from
13.12.2017 till the date of actual realization,
within a period 30 days failing which the
same shall be recovered through sale of
already identified and attached and other
assets of Defendant Nos. 2 to 7. The cost of
litigation of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs shall also be
II.
paid by the Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 to the
Applicant/AARC. Recovery Certificate be issued
forthwith and be send to the Recovery
Officer. IV. The attachment order dated
21.02.2020 qua the properties of Defendants
mentioned in IA Nos. 176 of 2017 and 134 of 2017
will continue and the Recovery Officer shall
proceed with taking steps for the sale of the
said properties for the recovery of the
outstanding dues. Parties are directed to appear
before the Recovery Officer on 04.07.2022.
III.
V.
The Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as
per this Certificate in the manner and mode
prescribed under Section 25 and 28 of the
Recovery of Debts Due

30
OA No. 188/2013
30
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (as
amended from time to time) from the above named
Certificate Debtor. This Certificate has been
issued under my signatures and seal of the
Tribunal on this 18.05.2022. (Vivek
Saxena) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Jaipur Place-Jaipur Dated-18.05.2022

31
OA No. 188/2013
31

• FORM NO. 10
• See Regulation-24(1)
• DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
• First Floor, Sudharma-II, Opp.Kisan Bhawan, Lal
  Kothi Shopping Centre, Tonk Road, JAIPUR- 302015
• SCHEDULED TO RECOVERY CERTIFICATE MEMO OF COST
• O.A No. 188 of 2013
• ALCHEMIST ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.
• Having its Regd. Office at D-54, Defence Colony
  (First Floor), New Delhi-110024 through its Vice
  President.
• ..Applicant Bank
• VERSUS
• M/S. HOTEL GAUDAVAN PVT. LIMITED, Having its
• Reged. Office at C-22, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
  302021
• SHRI LOKENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/o. Shri Dilip
• Singh Rathore r/o D-9 Paschim Vihar, Vaishali
  Nagar, Jaipur 302021 Director Guarantor of M/s
  Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd.
• SHRI HARENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/o. Shri Dilip
• Singh Rathore r/o D-9 Paschim Vihar, Vaishali
  Nagar, Jaipur 302021 Director Guarantor of M/s
  Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd.

32
OA No. 188/2013
32
S. No. Item of Costs Amount in Rupees
1. Fee on the application 1,50,000
2. Process Fees (inc. Publication) 821
3. Advocate Fees 1,250
4. Commissioner/Receivers/Valuation/ Security Fee NIL
5. Miscellaneous Charges NIL
Total Costs 1,52,071
(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Jaipur
Place-Jaipur Dated-18.05.2022

33
OA No. 188/2013
33
18.05.2022 Counsel Shri Akarsh Mathur along with
Ms. Jayshree Das Gupta Sh. Abhishek Saxena,
Counsel for the applicant Sh. Saurabh Jain, Ld.
Counsel for the Defendant No. 1, M/s Hotel
Gaudawan Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Sudeep Singh Hora alongwith
Sh. Manish, Counsel for Defendant No. 2, Sh.
Lokendra Singh Rathore Sh. Sarash Saini along
with Sh. Puneet Gupta, Ld. Counsel for Defendant
No. 3 Sh. R.K. Salecha, Ld. Counsel for Defendant
No. 6, Jitendra Singh Rathore, Smt. Arti Sharma,
Counsel for Defendant No. 8. None for Defendant
No. 4, 5, 7 Judgment dictated separately and
pronounced in the open court. As per order the
O.A. is allowed. Recovery Certificate be prepared
accordingly and the Registry is directed to
verify the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation
24(1) and (2) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
Regulation 2015 and after verification place the
same before the Tribunal.
(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Jaipur

34
OA No. 188/2013
34
18.05.2022 Counsel Shri Akarsh Mathur along with
Ms. Jayshree Das Gupta Sh. Abhishek Saxena,
Counsel for the applicant Sh. Saurabh Jain, Ld.
Counsel for the Defendant No. 1, M/s Hotel
Gaudawan Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Sudeep Singh Hora alongwith
Sh. Manish, Counsel for Defendant No. 2, Sh.
Lokendra Singh Rathore Sh. Sarash Saini along
with Sh. Puneet Gupta, Ld. Counsel for Defendant
No. 3 Sh. R.K. Salecha, Ld. Counsel for Defendant
No. 6, Jitendra Singh Rathore, Smt. Arti Sharma,
Counsel for Defendant No. 8. None for Defendant
No. 4, 5, 7 The Tribunal vide order dated
18.05.2022, directed the Registrar to verify
the Recovery Certificate as per Regulation 24(1)
and (2) of Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
Regulation 2015.
The Registrar vide order dated Recovery
Certificate as per Regulation
18.05.2022 verified the 24(1) and (2) of Debts
Recovery Tribunal Jaipur Regulation 2015.
Recovery Certificate is prepared accordingly.
Copy of the Judgment and Recovery
Certificate be given free to the concerned
parties as well as be sent to the Recovery
Officer for further proceedings. File be put up
before the Registrar for compliance. After
compliance file be consigned to record.
(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Jaipur

35
OA No. 188/2013
35
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 188 of 2013 The Recovery
Certificate prepared in compliance of order dated
18.05.2022 passed by Honble Presiding Officer,
DRT, Jaipur in Original Application No. 188
of 2013 Title- ALCHEMIST ASSET RECONSTRUCTION
COMPANY LTD.Vs. M/S. HOTEL GAUDAVAN
PVT. LIMITED and Ors has been checked and may be
verified.
Section Officer
Assistant Registrar On the basis of the report
of Section Officer the Recovery Certificate is
verified. The Recovery Certificate is placed
below for the signature of Honble Presiding
Officer please.
Assistant Registrar
Honble Presiding Officer