# STCI Finance Limited vs. IMP Powers Limited & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 27 Apr 2026. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00153. Three appeals arose from the insolvency and liquidation proceedings of Corporate Debtor, IMP…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 27 Apr 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00153
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/stci-finance-limited-vs-imp-powers-limited-ors-92vlr

## Summary

### Background

Three appeals arose from the insolvency and liquidation proceedings of Corporate Debtor, IMP Powers Limited. STCI Finance Limited, a financial creditor, claimed a first pari passu charge and elected not to relinquish its security interest under Section 52 of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed STCI's application to set aside an e-auction sale notice and independently realize secured assets, and later directed the issuance of a sale certificate for the Corporate Debtor sold as a going concern. STCI challenged these orders, arguing a violation of its statutory rights due to the Liquidator's alleged unilateral relinquishment assumption and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The third appeal challenged an order granting reliefs to the successful auction

…

## Facts

STCI Finance Limited, an NBFC, extended a term loan of Rs. 25 crores to IMP Powers Limited (Corporate Debtor) between November 2017 and August 2018.

Loan security included loan agreements and mortgage deeds executed on 29.11.2017, with a supplementary mortgage on 04.08.2018 creating a first pari passu charge in favor of STCI and SBI.

The Appellant's exposure was approximately Rs. 40 crores, while SBI's outstanding dues were approximately Rs. 4 crores.

A default in repayment obligations occurred from 29.02.2020, leading STCI to issue an Event of Default notice on 09.02.2021 and a Recall Notice on 21.05.2021.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the decision of the Liquidator to compulsorily bring the security interest of the Appellant …

**Ratio:** A secured creditor's right to independently realize security interest under Section 52 of

…

**Reasoning:** The Appellant (STCI) failed to comply with Regulation 21A(2) by not paying its share of

…

**Interpretation:** Section 52 of the IBC requires active compliance, not just assertion of rights.

…

**Application:** STCI's non-compliance with the payment and procedural requirements under

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Indevar P…; Ashok Bh…
- **Appellants:** STCI Finance…
- **Respondents:** IMP Powers…; IMP Powers…; +9 more
- **Other parties:** Insolvency and…; Liquidation…; +12 more

## Timeline

- **2017-11-29 — Term Loan and Mortgage…**: STCI Finance Limited extended a term loan of Rs. 25 crores to IMP Powers Limited, with…
- **2018-08-04 — Supplementary…**: A supplementary mortgage deed was executed, creating a first pari passu charge in favor…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/stci-finance-limited-vs-imp-powers-limited-ors-92vlr