State Bank of India Vs Hotel Milestonnez India Pvt Ltd - As regards application filed under Section 43 of IBC vide No. 1601/2022, the amount realized is more than the amount payable / claimed and the claims of the parties have been settled, nothing survives in the application.

 NCLT Chennai-1 (2025.09.11) State Bank of India Vs Hotel Milestonnez India Pvt Ltd [CP(IB)/243 (CHE)/2021] held that; 

• it was held that the State Bank of India is not entitled to any additional claim by way of interest beyond the claim made in Form D dated 06.03.2023. No appeal has been preferred against the order and as such the order has become final. Considering the above facts, the Financial Creditor cannot be permitted to pursue these applications nor can be the beneficiary of these applications.

• As regards application filed under Section 43 of IBC vide No. 1601/2022, the amount realized is more than the amount payable / claimed and the claims of the parties have been settled, nothing survives in the application.

Excerpts of the Order;

ORDER

IA(IBC)/1601(CHE)/2022; IA(IBC)/93(CHE)/2023

Present: Ld. Counsel Ms. Jayanthi K Shah for the Applicant / Liquidator.

Ld. Counsel Shri. B. Raghavulu Naidu for State Bank of India.

Ld. Counsel Shri. Raghunathan for R1 and R2.

Ld. Counsel Shri. B. Sarath Babu for R3.

Heard.

In the present case, the amount claimed has been fully paid to the Financial Creditor. Vide an order dated 30.05.2025 in IA/1990/2024, it was held that the State Bank of India is not entitled to any additional claim by way of interest beyond the claim made in Form D dated 06.03.2023. No appeal has been preferred against the order and as such the order has become final. Considering the above facts, the Financial Creditor cannot be permitted to pursue these applications nor can be the beneficiary of these applications.

Ld. Counsel for the Suspended Director is directed to make a chart justifying the transactions alleged in the application IA/93/2023 filed under Section 66 of IBC. As regards application filed under Section 43 of IBC vide No. 1601/2022, the amount realized is more than the amount payable / claimed and the claims of the parties have been settled, nothing survives in the application.

The application IA(IBC)/1601(CHE)/2022 is disposed of.

List the application IA/93/2023 on 06.11.2025.

IA(IBC)/1541/(CHE)/2024

Present: Ld. Counsel Ms. Jayanthi K Shah for the Applicant / Liquidator.

Ld. Counsel Shri. Abishek Murthy for R1 / SIPCOT.

Ld. Counsel Shri. Ragunathan for R2 and R3.

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the lease was cancelled by SIPCOT during the moratorium and was allotted to the third party. Ld. Counsel for R1 submits that the notice was issued prior to initiation of CIRP and the Corporate Debtor did not comply with the terms of the lease which made the SIPCOT cancel the lease and allot to the third party. Even NoC

from SIPCOT was not taken by the Corporate Debtor while pledging the leasehold rights with the Bank.

Ld. Counsel for R2 and R3 submits that the leasehold rights issued by SIPCOT were not pledged with the Bank.

On perusal of the reply filed by SIPCOT, no documents have been placed regarding cancellation of leasehold rights or notice to the Corporate Debtor.

Ld. Counsel for the SIPCOT is directed to file the documents for further consideration.

Parties are directed to file short synopsis of arguments.

List the application for hearing on 06.11.2025.

IA/IBC/647(CHE)/2025

Present: Ld. Counsel Shri. Pawan Jhabakh for the Applicant.

Ld. Counsel Ms. Jayanthi K Shah for the Respondent / Liquidator.

Reply filed by the Liquidator raising no objection to the relief and concessions sought for in the present application.

Arguments heard.

Order Reserved.

----------------------------------------------------