SREI Equipment Finance Withdraws NCLAT Appeal After SRA Clarifies Mortgaged Mulund Property Not in Resolution Plan
SREI Equipment Finance withdrew its challenge to the approved resolution plan of Nirmal Lifestyle (Mulund) after the successful resolution applicant confirmed the disputed mortgaged property was excluded.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's Principal Bench at New Delhi dismissed an appeal filed by SREI Equipment Finance Limited as withdrawn on 3 June 2026, after the successful resolution applicant — M/s Mantra Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. — clarified on record that the property at the centre of the dispute was not included in the approved resolution plan. The appeal had challenged an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 29 April 2026, which had approved the resolution plan for Nirmal Lifestyle (Mulund) Private Limited. SREI's core grievance was that a property exclusively mortgaged to it had been swept into the plan without affording it a hearing. Once the SRA's counsel made a statement to the contrary, SREI's senior counsel chose not to press the appeal further.
The Property in Dispute and SREI's Grievance
SREI Equipment Finance held an exclusive mortgage over a plot identified as CTS No. 4/3, admeasuring 8,824.5 sq. mtrs., situated at Balrajeshwar Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai — 400080. The mortgage was created on 18 September 2019 by way of a mortgage deed, securing two loans of Rs. 84.2 crores each.
When the NCLT, Mumbai approved the resolution plan for Nirmal Lifestyle (Mulund) Private Limited while disposing of I.A. 5120 of 2025 and I.A. No. 20 (Plan) of 2025 in C.P. (IB)/1150(MB)/C-III/2022, SREI contended that this mortgaged property had been included in the plan. Its case before NCLAT was that the property, being exclusively mortgaged to it, ought not to have been brought within the resolution plan without first hearing SREI as the secured creditor.
Procedural Steps Before the Bench
When the matter came up before the bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Naresh Salecha, the bench noticed that the successful resolution applicant — M/s Mantra Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. — had not been arrayed as a party to the appeal. Senior counsel for SREI, Mr. Gopal Jain, made an oral request to add the SRA as Respondent No. 4 and assured the bench that an amended memo of parties would be filed within a week.
The bench accepted the request. M/s Mantra Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was formally impleaded as Respondent No. 4. Its counsel, who was present in court, accepted notice on the spot.
SRA's Clarification and SREI's Decision to Withdraw
Once the SRA was on record, its counsel made a specific statement: the land forming part of CTS No. 4/3 admeasuring 8,824.5 sq. mtrs., known as Nirmal Olympia II, was not included in the resolution plan. The bench directed that this statement be made part of the record.
On hearing this clarification, Mr. Gopal Jain, appearing for SREI, indicated that the appellant intended to withdraw the appeal. The bench accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Outcome
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1035 of 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn. Three pending interlocutory applications — I.A. Nos. 4084, 4085 and 4086 of 2026 — were also disposed of consequentially. The SRA's statement that the mortgaged property at CTS No. 4/3 (Nirmal Olympia II) is not part of the resolution plan now stands recorded as part of the NCLAT order dated 3 June 2026.