Akbar Bashir Pathan vs Rna Corp Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Debhasis ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Akbar Bhasir Pathan ...Appellants Versus RNA Corp Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents Through Mr. Debasis Nanda Resolution Professional

WITH Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1208 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Sai Raj Developers ...Appellants Versus RNA Corp Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents Through Mr. Debasis Nanda Resolution Professional

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra with Ms. Ramya Aggarwal and Ms. Lavanya Pathak, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Harsh Kesharia, Advocate for RP. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Mr. Aniruth Purusothaman, Advocates for Intervener.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.11.2024: Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. These two appeals have been filed against the same order dated

19.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. 5337 of 2023 and I.A.

5339 of 2023. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has rejected the

IAs. The appellant in this appeals are owner of the immovable property in

which they claimed that they have 5/6th share and 1/6th share was owned by the corporate debtor. In the application which was filed by the appellant

following prayers were made:-

PRAYER

a) Issue necessary directions to the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor to co-operate with the Applicant to demarcate the subject land viz, share of lands bearing Survey No. 17 and Hissa No. 4-A ad.measuring 4080 sq. m1rS., Survey No. 17 and Hissa No. 4-B ad.measuring 3150 sq. mtrs. and Survey No. 17 and Hissa No. 4-C admeasuring 3030 sq. mtrs., situated at Village Kashi, Taluka and District Thane in the Registration Distrcit and Sub-District Thane, within the limits of Mira Bbayander Municipal Corporation;

b) Issue necessary directions to the Resolution Professional to value its share in the subject land and sell its share in the subject land after necessary consultation with the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor; and

c) pass such other/further order(s) that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.

3. In the present case CIRP against the corporate debtor commenced by

order dated 26.11.2019, Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, the suspended director of

the CD filed a civil appeal no. 827-828 of 2021 where the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has passed the following order :

0RDER Issue notice.

Counter affidavit, if any, be filed in the meanwhile. In the meanwhile, status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties.

Tag along with C.A. No.878/2019.

List on 01.07.2021.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1206 & 1208 of 2024 2 of 4 On 12.04.2021, Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order noticing

the order of status quo by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the

application filed by the appellant.

4. Shri Gaurav Mitra, counsel for the appellant challenging the order

submits that there is no dispute to the fact that appellant owned 5/6th share

and the appellant is not effecting the 1/6th share of the corporate debtor and

further the status quo order passed by Supreme Court has to be read as status

quo with regard to the CIRP process only hence the Adjudicating Authority

committed error in rejecting the application.

5. Shri Ravi Raghunath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the intervener/

suspended directors submits that the status quo was directed to be maintained

by the parties which clearly is status quo with regard to assets as well as the

CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the application and the

course open for the appellant was to file an application for clarification in the

civil appeal 827-828 of 2021. Ld. Counsel for the RP also submitted that in

view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court no steps could have been taken by

the RP with regard to the 1/6th share of the appellant assets of the corporate

debtor.

6. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the

records. We are of the view that in view of the interim order passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court directing "status quo as it exists today shall be

maintained by the parties" appropriate course open for the appellant is to seek

clarification/ modification or an appropriate application before the Supreme

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1206 & 1208 of 2024 3 of 4 Court. We are of the view that appellant without obtaining a clarification on

modification could not have prayed for demarcation of the assets in which

corporate debtor has 1/6th share. Adjudicating Authority thus did not commit

any error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for demarcation of

the shares. It is still open for the appellant to make an appropriate application

in the pending appeal, in event order is passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

we grant liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application before the

Adjudicating Authority. With these observations we dismiss the appeals.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/Kam

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1206 & 1208 of 2024 4 of 4