The case involves a legal dispute between Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Plaintiff) and Meeti Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant) over a loan of ₹55 crores advanced by the plaintiff for the redevelopment of New Kamal Kunj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (Defendant No. 6). Meeti Developers had mortgaged part of the free-sale area of the redevelopment project as security for this loan. Due to defaults by Meeti Developers, Edelweiss sought to enforce its rights as a creditor and filed suits for monetary recovery, while also contesting new agreements entered into by the Society with a third-party developer (Ajmera Luxe Realty Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiff's attempts to amend its suit were partly accepted, but the court ruled that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prevented some aspects of the enforcement of security interests.

1. Development Agreement:
   In 2006, Meeti Developers entered into a development agreement with New Kamal Kunj Co-Operative Housing Society to redevelop the society's premises. Under this agreement, Meeti Developers was entitled to deal with a free sale area of 74,226 square feet.

2. Loan Agreement:
   Meeti Developers secured financial assistance of ₹55 crores from ECL Finance Ltd. (now Edelweiss), creating a mortgage over the free sale area as security for this loan. The facility was structured through Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs), with Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. appointed as the debenture trustee.

3. Defaults and Legal Action:
   Meeti Developers defaulted on the terms of the debenture trust deed. Edelweiss initially filed a petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Meeti Developers, leading to the initiation of insolvency proceedings. Subsequently, Edelweiss withdrew this petition based on a transfer agreement with Ajmera Realty, but disputes arose when the housing society terminated the agreement with Meeti Developers and entered into a new one with Ajmera Luxe Realty.

4. Plaintiff’s Claim:
   Edelweiss sought a monetary decree against Meeti Developers for failure to repay the NCDs, along with an enforcement of its mortgage over the free sale area of 74,226 sq. ft. It also contested the redevelopment agreement executed between the Society and Ajmera Luxe, claiming it infringed upon its mortgage rights.

5. IBC Moratorium:
   The court ruled that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC prevented Edelweiss from enforcing the security interest over Meeti Developers' property, but allowed amendments to the plaint related to the alleged collusion between Ajmera Luxe and the Society.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016
   • Section 14 (Moratorium): Imposes a moratorium on the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor and prohibits actions to enforce security interests.
2. Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
   • Order I Rule 10: Deals with the substitution and addition of parties in a suit.
   • Order VI Rule 17: Governs amendments to pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that while Edelweiss had a right to assert its claims under the debenture trust deed, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prevents the enforcement of security interests over the property of Meeti Developers during insolvency proceedings. However, the court allowed amendments to the plaint concerning claims related to the subsequent development agreement involving Ajmera Luxe Realty, as these claims did not strictly fall under the prohibition of enforcing security interests under the IBC.