Bliss Equity Private Limited vs Mr. Durga Das Agrawal

IN THE MATTER OF: Bliss Equity Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Durga Das Agrawal & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Isha Virmani, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vipul Ganda, Mr. Shivam Gautam, Ms. Avnika Mishra, Mr. Ishan Upadhaya, Advocates with Mr. Durga Das Agrawal, RP in person for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

05.03.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the order

dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company

Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court - IV by which order IA No.3801(ND)/2023

filed by the Resolution Professional against the Appellant has been allowed.

By the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has held that the Appellant

is a related party and the loan transaction which was claimed by the Appellant

was held to be not a secured charge either registered with Registrar of

Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), or with the Central Registry

of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI)

and order was issued for handing over the possession of asset and all relevant

documents.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

the mere fact that the in the notary there was no address cannot be ground

Cont'd.../ 2

to discard the transaction. It is further submitted that by virtue of loan

transaction the possession of the assets was given to the Appellant and Deed

of Usufructuary Mortgage was executed. Hence, the Appellant was entitled to

retain the possession of the asset and the Appellant cannot be obliged to hand

over the original title deeds.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Appellant is a

related party and the loan transaction was entered just after the issuance of

the notice in Section 7 application and the whole object was to somehow save

the property from the CIRP process. It is further submitted that the claim of

the Appellant has not been accepted as Secured Financial Creditor.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

5. The Adjudicating Authority has retuned a finding that Appellant is a

related party, which is established by order dated 05.07.2023 which

continues to be valid and binding, as it was never challenged. The submission

of the Appellant that the possession of the asset is on the basis of an

Usufructuary Mortgage has no merit. It is not disputed that the asset belongs

to the Corporate Debtor. When the asset belongs to the Corporate Debtor who

has ownership right, there is no error in the direction of the Adjudicating

Authority for peacefully handing over the possession of the assets to the IRP

and the documents of the property/asset in question to be handed over to the

IRP. In so far as documents related to loan transaction, as claimed by the

Appellant, the Appellant can keep the original copy of the documents and its

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.220 of 2025 3

attested copy can be given to the IRP, if required. With above observations,

this appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.220 of 2025