1,7. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the parties to this appeal. I have also perused the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Recovery Officer. As per enquiry of the learned Recovery Officer, the appellant company and 2nd respondent company are associate companies, the Director of appellant company is also the Director of 2nd respondent company, who stood as guarantor for the credit facilities granted by the 1.t respondent bank. According to appellant, being a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, has a separate identity and there is nothing wrong in being the Director of both companies. However, the crux of the issue is whether the lease agreement was pre-existing to the mortgage created in favour of l"t respondent bank. I would directly deal with that issue to decide the appeal. The learned RO took cognizance of lease deed dated 19.02.2009, Declaration daled 26.12.2013 submitted to SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd, OTS proposal dated 74.06.2027, mortgage of title deeds with Axis Bank vide Doc.No.19.12.2007 along with documents filed in this OA, to come to a conclusion that the mortgage was created much prior to execution of lease deed by the 2nd respondent-borrower company in favour of appellant company. The OA was instltuted by the 1't respondent bank against the 2nd respondent company in the year 2015 and filed loan documents executed by the defendants at the time of availing various credit facilities from 2004 onwards by creating charge over the assets of the company and properties of defendants 2 and 3. It is a matter of record that the defendants remained ex parte to the OA proceedings and this Tribunal passed final order dated 11.05.2018 against the 2nd respondent company, its assets and alsoperson and properties of defendants 2 and 3, basing on documents exhibited by the 1't respondent bank through AW-1. fu.*
