Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd vs Truvisory Insolvency Professionals ...

[Arising out of Order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench-1 in IA (I.B.C) 1697(MB)2025 in CP(IB) 494/MB/2019]

In the matter of: Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Prasad, Mr. Vedant Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Ashish Pyasi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Ms. Katyayani, Mr. Yash Tandon, Mr. Utkarsh, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

27th March, 2026)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated

12.01.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal) Mumbai Bench-I in IA (I.B.C) 1697(MB)2025 filed by the Resolution

Professional of the Corporate Debtor- 'Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.'

The Application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking eviction of the

Appellant who was occupying the part of the premise of the Corporate Debtor

has been allowed by the impugned order directing the Appellant to vacate and 2

handover possession within 30 days. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal

has been filed.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal

are:-

2.1. The Corporate Debtor- Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. is a Real

Estate Company engaged in infrastructure development. The Corporate

Debtor in February/ March 2008 permitted the Appellant, who was supplying

marbles and stones to the Corporate Debtor to set up a sales office at the

premises to avoid transportation delays and minimise logistical costs.

Appellant set up sales office on part of Plot No.9 situated at Shriram Mills

premises. The Appellant was initially supplying the marbles and stones to the

Corporate Debtor and was catering Corporate Debtor exclusively. However,

from December 2008, Appellant was permitted to carry on its business

operation from the premises by catering to other customers. A Winding-Up

Petition No.1066 of 2015 was filed by Action Barter Private Limited against

the Corporate Debtor before the Bombay High Court seeking winding up of

the Corporate Debtor. On 05.10.2016, Bombay High Court passed an order

appointing an Official Liquidator to take charge of the assets/ properties and

records of the Corporate Debtor. Official Liquidator appointed by the Bombay

High Court went to take possession of the premises from the Appellant who

was working adjacent to Gate No.3, Plot No.9 on 04.06.2019. Representative

of the Appellant informed that there is no prior intimation from the Official

Liquidator to vacate the premises, he sought at least 30 days' time to vacate

the premises. The liquidator on 25.06.2019 issued a letter to the Appellant to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 3

vacate the premises. The date for handing over possession was fixed as

01.07.2019. Appellant filed a Company Application No.261 of 2019 in

Company Petition No.1066 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court seeking

restraint order from taking possession of the property and permitting

Appellant to hold possession of property as agent of liquidator. No written

order was passed by the Bombay High Court, however, the Advocate of

Appellant sent an e-mail that Court has orally directed from not taking

possession and 03.07.2019 is the date fixed in the application. In the

application, no orders could be passed in favour of the Appellant by the

Bombay High Court, however, Appellant continued to be in occupation of the

premises. On an application under Section 7 filed by Srei Equipment Finance

Ltd., CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 06.11.2019. The

Respondent No.1 filed a claim before the Resolution Professional claiming

principal amount of Rs.1,34,86,201/- and the interest @ of 18% totalling to

Rs.3,06,51,041/- as outstanding against the Corporate Debtor. The

Resolution Professional by letter dated 10.02.2023 informed the Appellant

that they are in unauthorised and lawful occupation of part of the property.

However, no response was received by the Resolution Professional and the

Resolution Professional again sent an eviction notice dated 20.03.2025 to

Appellant informing that occupation of Appellant is encroachment and

unlawful as the property is owned by the Corporate Debtor, hence, the

Appellant must vacate the premises. Appellant did not vacate the premises

nor sent any response. IA No.1697 of 2025 was filed by the Resolution

Professional seeking a direction in discharge of his duties to protect the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 4

interest of the Corporate Debtor. Resolution Professional sought necessary

co-operation /assistance of police personnel for taking back the peaceful and

vacant possession to the property. In the application filed by the Resolution

professional, reply was filed by the Appellant raising plea that Adjudicating

Authority has no jurisdiction to evict tenant/lessee. There is no valid

authorisation of assignment in favour of the RP and necessary facts have been

supressed by the Resolution Professional. The case of the Appellant was that

it supplied marbles and stones from 2006 to 2013 and principal amount of

Rs.1,34,86,201/- is due. It was pleaded that the Corporate Debtor permitted

the Appellant was allowed to continue to occupy so as to settle the

outstanding dues from the Corporate Debtor. The application filed by the

Resolution Professional was fixed for hearing on 02.12.2025. Appellant filed

a S.C. Suit No.2944 of 2025 on 01.12.2025 before City Civil Court at Bombay

seeking perpetual injunction from interfering with the Appellant's possession

of the premises. Hearing in application filed by the Resolution Professional

being IA No.1697 of 2025 which was concluded on 02.12.2025 and parties

were asked to file written submissions by 10.12.2025. On 09.12.2025, City

Civil Court passed an interim order granting an ad-interim relief in terms of

prayer clause restrained from disturbing and or interfering with the plaintiffs

use, occupation, possession over the suit premises till next date, save and

except by following due process of law. Appellant claimed to have mentioned

the matter before the Adjudicating Authority on 09.01.2026 regarding ad-

interim order passed by City Civil Court. On 12.01.2026, Adjudicating

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 5

Authority passed the impugned order allowing the application. Adjudicating

Authority in paragraph 29 issued following directions:-

"29. After consideration of the facts before us, we find that the assertions of Respondent No. 1 to justify its occupation of said occupation as legal are contradictory to the facts on record and are false as is revealed from the aforesaid analysis. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the contention that the occupation of said premises by Respondent No. 1 is legal, thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the Respondent No. 1 is in unlawful and illegal occupation of said premises and it is obligated to vacate the same forthwith. Since, the Respondent No. 1 has stored its goods thereat, we consider it appropriate to allow a period of 30 days for handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of said premises to the applicant. Having said so, we request Respondent No. 2 to extend necessary assistance and co-operation to the Applicant for peaceful and vacant possession of the said premises from Respondent No. 1 as and when their assistance is requested by the Applicant herein."

2.2. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order held that occupation and

possession of Appellant is unlawful and illegal. The assertion of Appellant to

justify its occupation are false and contradictory to the facts on record.

Aggrieved by the order, this Appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel for the

Appellant and Shri Krishnendu Datta, Learned Senior Counsel for the

Respondent No.1.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 6

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

the Adjudicating Authority erred in entertaining and allowing the eviction

application despite the possession of the premises having no nexus with the

CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that under Section 60(5)(c),

Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed

by the Resolution Professional for eviction of the Appellant. Adjudicating

Authority does not have jurisdiction over matters which are dehors the

insolvency proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to pass

an order of eviction. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to

appreciate that the Appellant had an oral tenancy with the Corporate Debtor.

It is submitted that oral lease with the Corporate Debtor is permissible under

the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Oral understanding

between the parties has not been correctly appreciated by the Adjudicating

Authority. The Adjudicating Authority disregarded the oral direction passed

by the Bombay High Court on 01.07.2019 as well as the interim order dated

09.12.2025 passed by the City Civil Court. It is submitted that the liquidator

could not take possession due to oral order passed by the Bombay High Court

in the application which was filed by the Appellant in the pending Company

Petition before the Bombay High Court. Further interim injunction granted by

City Civil Court on 09.12.2025 has been disregarded although fact of

obtaining interim order on 09.12.2025 was brought into notice of the

Adjudicating Authority but the same has not been dealt with. It is further

submitted that the CIRP proceeding against the Corporate Debtor has been

stayed since 2021 and possession of the premises is not essential for the CIRP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 7

Resolution Professional has not shown any reason or justification for asking

for possession of the premises from the Appellant. When CIRP is stayed, there

is no requirement of possession. Appellants are continuing in possession for

last 17 years and carrying on business since 2008. Appellant has also

obtained necessary registration from the statutory authorities and paying its

bills and taxes. The order of the Adjudicating Authority directing for eviction

of the Appellant is not in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the

Appellant has placed reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and this Tribunal which we shall refer to while considering the

submissions in detail.

5. Shri Krishnendu Datta, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Respondent submits that the Appellant is in unauthorised occupation of

premises of the Corporate Debtor. There is no written contract/agreement

between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant. The Appellant has also failed

to prove any oral contract pertaining to any tenancy created in favour of the

Appellant. Appellant was only permitted to occupy the part of premises for

stocking its marbles and stones. Only written letter relied by the Appellant is

letter dated 22.12.2008 of the Corporate Debtor permitting it to occupy the

premises to stock its marbles. At no point of time Corporate Debtor granted

any lease or license in favour of the Appellant. When the liquidation

proceedings were initiated before the Bombay High Court in petition under

Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 by order dated

05.10.2016, Provisional Liquidator went on the spot and took symbolic

possession on 04.06.2019. Liquidator also issued letter on 25.06.2019 asking

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 8

the Appellant to give possession and 01.07.2019 was date fixed for taking

physical possession. Company Application was filed by the Appellant being

Company Application No.261 of 2019 in winding up petition in which no order

was ever passed in favour of the Appellant. After initiation of CIRP against the

Corporate Debtor on 06.11.2019, Resolution Professional twice issued letter

to Appellant to vacate the premises which was not complied with leading to

the Resolution Professional filing an application directing for eviction of the

Appellant. Adjudicating Authority is the appropriate authority to decide the

issue raised by the Resolution Professional in the application. It is the duty of

the Resolution Professional to take possession of the property belonging to

the Corporate Debtor under Section 18(1)(f) and Section 25 of the IBC. The

submission of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has no

jurisdiction to direct for eviction of the Appellant is wholly erroneous. The

submission of the Appellant relying on order of the City Civil Court dated

09.12.2025 also does not support the Appellant, Section 63 of the IBC clearly

exclude the jurisdiction of any Civil Court. Further under the order dated

09.12.2025, only protection was that Appellant shall not be evicted without

due process of law. Appellant is being evicted under due process of law, hence,

the order of the Civil Court does not come to any rescue. Reliance placed on

oral order passed by the Bombay High Court on 01.07.2019 also does not

improve any case of the Appellant since in the application filed by the

Appellant, no order was passed by the Bombay High Court protecting the

Appellant. More so, CIRP has been commenced, it is the Adjudicating

Authority which has all jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 9

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on various

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal which we shall

refer to while considering the submissions in detail.

6. From the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and materials on

the record, following are the issues which arise for consideration:-

(I) Whether the application filed by the Resolution Professional being

IA No.1697 of 2025 praying for eviction of the Appellant from part of the

premises of the Corporate Debtor was not maintainable and

Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the

application?

(II) Whether Corporate Debtor has given any tenancy right/ lease

hold right/ license in favour of the Appellant and Appellant has been

able to prove any such rights by any relevant materials before the

Adjudicating Authority?

(III) Whether by virtue of interim injunction issued by the City Civil

Court on 09.12.2025 Adjudicating Authority was precluded to pass the

impugned order dated 12.01.2026?

Issue No. (I)

7. The first submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that

the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application

filed by the Resolution Professional for eviction of the Appellant. It is

submitted that the application was not maintainable under Section 60(5). It

is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority does not have jurisdiction over

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 10

matters which are dehors the insolvency proceedings and it is imperative for

the Resolution Professional to establish a nexus between the subject matter

and the CIRP. In event, a party is purported in unlawful possession of the

Corporate Debtor's premises, Resolution Professional must approach an

appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law.

Adjudicating Authority is not a Civil Court and if Corporate Debtor has to

exercise its right, it cannot through Resolution Professional bypass the

procedure and approach the Adjudicating Authority. As noted above, the

above submissions are refuted by Counsel for the Respondent contending that

the Adjudicating Authority has complete jurisdiction to entertain the

application.

8. There is no dispute between the parties that the part of premises of the

Corporate Debtor measuring 1701.3 sq. mtr. out of area 3046 sq. mtr. is in

possession of the Appellant. It is an admitted fact that the Corporate Debtor

is owner of the premises. It is the duty of the IRP under Section 18(1)(f) to take

control and custody of any asset to which Corporate Debtor has ownership

rights. Section 18(1)(f) is as follows:-

"18. Duties of interim resolution professional. - The interim resolution professional shall perform the following duties, namely: -

(f) take control and custody of any asset over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights as recorded in the balance sheet of the corporate debtor, or with information utility or the depository of securities or any

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 11

other registry that records the ownership of assets including -

(i) assets over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights which may be located in a foreign country; (ii) assets that may or may not be in possession of the corporate debtor; (iii) tangible assets, whether movable or immovable; (iv) intangible assets including intellectual property; (v) securities including shares held in any

subsidiary of the corporate debtor, financial instruments, insurance policies;

(vi) assets subject to the determination of ownership by a court or authority;"

9. Under Section 25 of the IBC, it is the duty of the Resolution Professional

to preserve and protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Section 25(1) &

(2)(a) are as follows:-

"25. Duties of resolution professional. - (1) It shall be the duty of the resolution professional to preserve and protect the assets of the corporate debtor, including the continued business operations of the corporate debtor.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the resolution professional shall undertake the following actions, namely: -

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 12

(a) take immediate custody and control of all the assets of the corporate debtor, including the business records of the corporate debtor;

(b) represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial or arbitration proceedings;

(c) raise interim finances subject to the approval of the committee of creditors under section 28;

(d) appoint accountants, legal or other professionals in the manner as specified by Board;

(e) maintain an updated list of claims;

(f) convene and attend all meetings of the committee of creditors;

(g) prepare the information memorandum in accordance with section 29;

[(h) invite prospective resolution applicants, who fulfil such criteria as may be laid down by him with the approval of committee of creditors, having regard to the complexity and scale of operations of the business of the corporate debtor and such other conditions as may be specified by the Board, to submit a resolution plan or plans.]

(i) present all resolution plans at the meetings of the committee of creditors;

(j) file application for avoidance of transactions in accordance with Chapter III, if any; and (k) such other actions as may be specified by the Board."

10. The IBC thus, cast a duty and obligation on the IRP and the Resolution

Professional to take control of assets of the Corporate Debtor. When the

Corporate Debtor is admittedly owner of the assets which according to the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 13

Corporate Debtor is in unlawful possession of the Appellant, we are of the

view that Resolution Professional had every jurisdiction to file an application

before the Adjudicating Authority for taking possession of the assets. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant in support of the submission that the Adjudicating

Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application has relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.

vs. Amit Gupta- (2021) 7 SCC 209", "Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. vs.

SK Wheels Private Limited- (2022) 2 SCC 583" and "Embassy Property

Developments (P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka- (2020) 13 SCC 308". The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment "Victory Iron Works

Limited vs. Jitendra Lohia and Anr.- (2023) 7 SCC 227" had occasion to

consider the nature of jurisdiction of the NCLT in respect to an application

filed by the Resolution Professional to protect its possession. In the said case,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also occasion to consider the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. and Embassy

Property Developments (P) Ltd. (supra). In the above case, the Resolution

Professional of the Corporate Debtor had filed an application before the

Adjudicating Authority in the CIRP proceeding of the Corporate Debtor

seeking direction to Respondent not to obstruct the sole and exclusive

possession of the property. The Appellant- Victory Iron Works Limited

claiming to be licensee objected to the application even questioning the

jurisdiction of the NCLT to entertain the application. The application was

allowed by NCLT against which order Appeal was filed which was dismissed

and the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 14

One of the questions which was framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for

discussion and analysis in Paragraph 16.2 which is as follows:-

"16.2. (2) Whether NCLT and NCLAT have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them in law by seeking to recover/protect the possession of the corporate debtor?"

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the above question i.e.

Issue No.2 in paragraphs 42 to 53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred

to Section 18 of the IBC and considered the said issue and has considered the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.,

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. and Embassy Property Developments (P)

Ltd. (supra). In paragraphs 42 and 43, following was observed:-

"42. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the resolution professional, the Explanation under Section 18 begins with a caveat, namely, "for the purposes of this Section". Therefore, the exclusion of assets owned by a third party, but in the possession of the corporate debtor held under contractual arrangements, from the definition of the expression "assets", is limited to Section 18. In other words, the Explanation under Section 18 does not extend to Section 25.

43. It must be mentioned here that the Explanation was originally limited to "the sub-section" but by Act 26 of 2018, the word "sub-section" was substituted by the word "section". Therefore, the Explanation under Section 18 will not provide an escape route for the appellants. In any case, the bundle of rights and interests created in favour of the corporate debtor may

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 15

even tantamount to creation of an implied agency under Chapter X of the Contract Act, 1872 and such agency may not even be amenable to termination in view of Section 202 of the said Act, since the creation of the same in favour of the corporate debtor was coupled with flow of consideration."

12. Further, considering the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in paragraphs 45, 46, 47 and 48 following was laid down:-

"45. Embassy Property Developments [Embassy Property Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308] arose out of a case where, under the guise of preserving and protecting the interests of the corporate debtor, NCLT issued [Vasudevan v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 681] a direction to the Government of Karnataka to grant renewal of a mining lease, in terms of the deeming provision in Section 8-A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Raising the question of jurisdiction of the NCLT to issue such a direction, the Government of Karnataka approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, instead of filing a statutory appeal to NCLAT. The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the said writ petition and also grant interim stay [State of Karnataka v. Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2463] , was what was questioned before this Court in the said decision. The right to have a mining lease granted by the Government, was neither a statutory right nor a contractual right. A person applying for a mining lease may at the most be entitled to have his application considered along with the applications of others and to a fair treatment. Once a mining lease is granted, the terms

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 16

and conditions of such grant may be subject to the covenants contained in the grant as well as the statutory provisions. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Embassy Property Developments [Embassy Property Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308] may not go to the rescue of the appellants in a case of this nature where Energy Properties became the owner only on account of the money paid by the corporate debtor and a bundle of very valuable rights and interests in immovable property was created thereafter in favour of the corporate debtor.

46. The decision of this Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam [Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta, (2021) 7 SCC 209 : (2021) 4 SCC (Civ) 1] may not also go to the rescue of the appellants, since the same arose out of a termination of power purchase agreement (for short "PPA"). In fact, this Court made a distinction in the said case, between

(i) a dispute that arose out of the termination of PPA solely on account of insolvency on the one hand; and

(ii) the other disputes relating to the PPA on the other hand.

47. The decision in TATA Consultancy [TATA Consultancy Services Ltd. v. SK Wheels (P) Ltd. (Resolution Professional), (2022) 2 SCC 583] , rather than helping the appellants, actually supports the case of the corporate debtor. In fact, the decision in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam [Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta, (2021) 7 SCC 209 : (2021) 4 SCC (Civ) 1] was distinguished in TATA Consultancy [TATA Consultancy Services Ltd. v. SK Wheels (P) Ltd. (Resolution Professional), (2022)

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 17

2 SCC 583] (by the very same author), on the ground that if the termination was on an ipso facto clause i.e. the fact of insolvency itself, then NCLT will have jurisdiction, but that there was no residuary jurisdiction for NCLT, if the termination of a contract is based on grounds unrelated to the insolvency."

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the NCLT and has

made following observations in paragraphs 51, 52 & 53:

"51. As we have seen earlier, two applications were filed before NCLT. One was by the Resolution Professional and the other was by Victory. A careful look at the application filed by Victory in C.A. (IB) No.146 of 2020 would show that there was no whisper about Victory occupying any land in excess of what they were permitted to occupy under the Leave and License Agreement. Under the Leave and License Agreement, Victory was allowed to occupy only 10000 sq. ft. of land, upon payment of a monthly license fee of Rs.5,000/-. If at all, a vague averment was made in paragraph VII (c) of their application to the effect that inasmuch as the Corporate Debtor was unable to commence any development activity in the subject land, the owner and the developer, with their full consent, had decided to allow the applicant to run its business in the usual course from the subject land, because the subject land could not have been left vacant for any substantial period of time.

52. The fact that there were security guards posted in the property is borne out by records. This is why NCLT as well as NCLAT have done a delicate act of balancing, by protecting the interests of Victory to the extent of the land permitted to be occupied. In fact, Victory does not even have

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 18

the status of a lessee, but is only a licensee. A license does not create any interest in the immovable property.

53. Therefore, NCLT as well as NCLAT were right in holding that the possession of the Corporate Debtor, of the property needs to be protected. This is why a direction under Regulation 30 had been issued to the local district administration."

Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.

14. It was clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the judgment

relied in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

and Embassy Property Developments (P) Ltd. (supra) were not attracted. In

the facts of the above case ("Victory Iron Works Limited), Resolution

Professional has filed the application to protect its possession, the NCLT was

held to have full jurisdiction and the said judgments fully support the

Respondent.

15. Counsel for the Respondent has relied on judgment of this Tribunal in

"M/s. Jhanvi Rajpal Automotive Pvt. Ltd. vs. R.P. of Rajpal Abhikaran

Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1417 of 2022" decided on

05.01.2023. In the said judgment, issue of similar nature came for

consideration. One of the questions which was framed by this Tribunal in

paragraph 8(i) was 'whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to

entertain IA filed by the RP seeking direction to the Appellant to handover the

possession of the premises which premises was owned by the Corporate

Debtor?'. Question 8(i) is as follows:-

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 19

"i. Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to entertain I.A. No. 200 of 2022 filed by the RP seeking direction to the Appellant to hand over the possession of the premises which premises was owned by the Corporate Debtor?"

16. This Tribunal heard the parties, noticed Section 18, Section 25 as well

as Section 60(5) of the IBC. In paragraph 14, it was held that when there is

no dispute that assets in question is owned by the Corporate Debtor,

Resolution Professional can take steps for taking possession of the assets of

the Corporate Debtor. In the above case, this Tribunal had also noted one of

the judgments relied by the Appellant. The submission of the Appellant that

Resolution Professional has to file a suit to get eviction order was also

considered and negated. In paragraphs 20 and 21, following was held:-

"20. Accepting the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that RP is obliged to file a suit for eviction of the Appellant under MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 even though lease in favour of the Appellant has expired shall be unduly prolonging the insolvency process which is a time bound process. When the Corporate Debtor has the ownership rights over the premises which premises can be taken in control by IRP/RP, we are of the view that for eviction of the Appellant especially in event when lease in favour of the Appellant has come to an end, filing a suit is not contemplated in the statutory scheme contained in IBC.

21. Thus, the contention of the Appellant that RP has to file a suit for eviction of the Appellant under the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 can not be accepted. We thus, in view of the foregoing discussions are of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 20

considered opinion that Adjudicating Authority has rightly allowed the Application filed by the RP directing the Appellant to vacate from the premises so that Resolution Plan which has been approved can be implemented. We thus do not find any merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed."

17. The above judgment was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

by its judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 in "Jhanvi Rajpal Automotive

P. Ltd. vs. R.P. of Rajpal Abhikaran P. Ltd. & Anr.- 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1535".

18. There is one more reason due to which the submission of the Appellant

that Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to seek eviction of the

Appellant cannot be accepted. Prior to initiation of CIRP against the Corporate

Debtor, winding up proceeding under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the

Companies Act, 1956 were initiated in the Bombay High Court where Bombay

High Court has passed an order on 05.10.2016 appointed a Provisional

Liquidator. The Bombay High Court in above order had issued direction to the

Provisional Liquidator to take charge of the assets/ properties and records of

the Corporate Debtor. It is useful to notice direction issued in paragraph 9(v)

which is as follows:-

"(v) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Company Petition, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, is appointed as Provisional Liquidator of the Respondent Company. The Provisional Liquidator shall forthwith take charge of the assets/properties and

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 21

records of the Respondent Company without awaiting any notification."

19. In pursuance of the said order of the Bombay High Court, Provisional

Liquidator went to take possession of the assets and had taken symbolic

possession on 04.06.2019 which was stated in the report submitted by the

Provisional Liquidator dated 04.06.2019 which report of the liquidator is part

of the record. Liquidator in the said report stated as follows:-

"Thereafter, we went to Plot No. 9 and we found CMC (classical Marble Company) is working and manufacturing marbles and also that 10 staff and 18 workers are working.

Thereafter the representatives of the official liquidator proceeded for taking physical possession of the CMC (Classical Marble Company) manufacturing Marbles working adjacent to Gate No. 3A i.e. Plot No. 9 Shri Mashroot FoF, representative of CMC (classical Marble Company) informed the representative there is no prior intimation/letter from the official liquidator to vacate the aforesaid premises and he further informed that the Company Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. has permitted classic Marble Impex Pvt. Ltd. to stock marbles at Shree Ram Mills Premises, vide their letter dated 22nd December 2008 issued by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. to Classic Marble Impex Pvt. Ltd. The copy of the letter dated 22nd December 2008 is annexed herewith to this minutes as Exhibit - "B".

Thereafter the representation of the Official Liquidator requested to Shri Mashrut FoF to vacate the aforesaid premises and remove the goods/materials belongs to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 22

Classic Marble Company which are lying in the aforesaid premises. However he informed that there were huge and heavy material are lying in the aforesaid premises. And also he informed that they have not received any prior intimation from the official Liquidator to vacate the premises. However, Shri Mashrut FoF requested the representatives of the official Liquidator to allow one month time to remove the huge and heavy materials and vacate the aforesaid premises. The request received from Shri. Mashruf FoF not accepted and the representatives of the Official Liquidator proceeded for physical possession. However Shri Mashruf FoF has strongly objected to take physical possession of the aforesaid premises, since there is no specific court order or any intimation to take physical possession of classic Marble Company. Therefore the representative of the Official Liquidator taken symbolic possession of the classic Marble Company which is situated at Plot No.9 by pasting possession board of the Official Liquidator on main entrance of Classic Marble Company."

20. Subsequently, liquidator had also issued a written notice dated

25.06.2019 for taking possession which notice also mentioned that liquidator

has taken symbolic possession. The notice dated 25.06.2019 to the Appellant

reads as follows:-

"To, Classic Marble Impex Pvt Ltd (Classic Marble Company) Shree Ram Mills Premises, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 IMMEDIATE/URGENT

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 23

Subject: In the matter of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (In Prov. Liqn).

Reference:- (1) Minutes dated 4.6.2019 at the time of taking Symbolic Possession of Classic Marble Company situated at Shree Ram Mills Premises (adjacent to Gate No.3A), Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 on 4.6.2019. Sir, With the reference the subject cited above, I am to state that by an order dated 5.10.2016 read with order dated 24.8.2016 and 22.3.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in Company Petition No.1066 of 2015, presented by Action Barter Pvt Ltd (the Petitioner), the Official Liquidator attached to the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay has been appointed as Provisional Liquidator of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd., under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

Further it is informed that the team of the Official Liquidator has visited the property of the Company (In Liqn) situated at Shree Ram Mills Premises, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 for taking physical possession of the Classic Marble Impex Pvt Ltd (Classic Marble Company) on 4.6.2019. However your representative has not handed over physical possession of the aforesaid property. Therefore the representatives of the Official Liquidator have taken symbolic possession of the aforesaid premises on 4.6.2019. It appears that you are occupying and storing marbles in the aforesaid premises without any authority.

Therefore, the Official Liquidator shall take possession of the property i.e. Classic Marble Impex Pvt Ltd (Classic Marble Company) situated at Shree Ram Mills Premises (adjacent to Gate No.3A), Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 on 1.7.2019 at 11.30.a.m Yours faithfully, (V.P. KATKAR) OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT, BOMBAY"

21. Thus, liquidator has already taken steps in the winding up proceeding

to take possession and symbolic possession was taken. Bombay High Court

had subsequently noticed that Provisional Liquidator stand discharged. After

initiation of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, it is the Resolution Professional who has to take all steps

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 24

regarding the assets of the Corporate Debtor, the Liquidator having been

discharged. It is relevant to notice that Appellant also filed an application

before the Bombay High Court in the winding up petition being Company

Application No.261 of 2019 on 01.07.2019 in which no order could be

obtained by the Appellant except according to Appellant an oral order was

passed on 01.07.2019 that till the next date i.e. 03.07.2019, liquidator not to

take possession.

22. We thus, are of the view that Resolution Professional was fully entitled

to file an application and application filed by Resolution Professional is fully

maintainable and is within jurisdiction. The submission of the Appellant is

that the Resolution Professional has to prove nexus with the insolvency with

respect to the application filed under Section 60(5)(c). The nexus with regard

to application is fully proved since the assets admittedly is owned by the

Corporate Debtor and the Resolution Professional is statutory obliged to take

steps to take possession and control of the assets. Thus, we do not find any

substance in the submission of the Appellant that Resolution Professional has

not proved any nexus. We thus, hold that application filed by the Resolution

Professional is fully maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority and the

submission raised by the Appellant regarding lack of jurisdiction of the

Adjudicating Authority has no substance and are rejected.

Issue No. (II)

23. The Appellant has claimed that he was permitted to occupy the

premises by the Corporate Debtor to stock its marbles and stones. Appellant

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 25

claimed to supply marbles and stones to the Corporate Debtor since 2006.

Appellant has placed reliance on the letter dated 22.12.2008 issued by the

Corporate Debtor to the Appellant which letter is on the record filed by the

Appellant itself. It is useful to notice the letter dated 22.12.2008 issued by the

company to the Appellant as claimed by the Appellant. Letter dated

22.12.2008 is as follows:-

"22nd December, 2008

TO WHOMSO EVER IT MAY CONCERN

This is to confirm that we are the owners of Avadh, Shree Ram Mills Premises, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 and we have permitted M/s. Classic Marble Impex Pvt. Ltd. to stock marble at our premises.

This certificate is issued as per the request made by Mis. Classic Marble Impex Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of intimation of place for stocking of marbles to the VAT Department.

For Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd

Authorised Signatory"

24. The letter mentioned that company is owner of Shree Ram Mills

Premises and owners have permitted M/s. Classic Marble Impex Pvt. Ltd. to

stock marble at our premises. No other letter or document is claimed by the

Appellant for any kind of right in the premises. The case which was set up by

the Appellant before the Bombay High Court in its Company Application

No.261 of 2019 filed after liquidator issued a notice on 25.06.2019 to the

Appellant to take possession of the premises where Appellant pleaded that

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 26

there were outstanding amount against the company due to supply of

marbles. Appellant claimed to have continuously used the premises as against

the outstanding amount which was due on the company. An additional-

affidavit has been filed to the said application 261 of 2019 where Appellant

has pleaded the relevant facts and the statement that company permitted the

Appellant to occupy the property till payment of the outstanding dues. In

paragraph 12 of the Affidavit, following was pleaded:-

"12. In or about April 2013, the Respondent represented to the Applicant Company that due to financial difficulty, they were unable to pay off the Applicant Company's outstanding amounts against the materials supplied and invoices raised on the Respondent Company. The Respondent Company requested the Applicant Company to continue to occupy the said Property till payment of the outstanding dues. Further, the Respondent requested that the interest amount, on the outstanding amount payable by the Respondent Company shall be adjusted towards the compensation for the use of the said Property by the Applicant Company. It was agreed that neither the Respondent Company would be liable to pay any interest to the Applicant Company on the outstanding dues, nor would the Applicant Company be liable to pay any amounts to the Respondent Company for the use of the said Property till repayment of the entire outstanding dues. In an attempt to recover the outstanding dues, the Applicant Company accepted the offer of the Respondent Company and has continued to remain Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 27

in continuous, peaceful and vacant possession and use of the said Property."

25. According to the Appellant, amount of Rs.1,34,86,201/- with interest

was due on the company which was stated in paragraph 13 to the following

effect:-

"13. I say that the interest amount itself payable on the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,34,86,201/- @ 18% p.a. works out to Rs.24,27,516/- p.a. and the said amount is being adjusted by the Respondent Company against the use of the said Property. In view of the said adjustment, the Applicant Company has also not demanded the said interest payment from the Respondent Company. The determination of the monthly rent/compensation at the relevant time was not computed as the interest amount was much more as compared to the monthly rent prevailing at the material time. The major portion of the said Property is surrounded interalia by trees and it is practically impossible for any other person to use the same. The copy of the Photographs of the said Property are hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "D"."

26. Appellant further pleaded that Appellant be allowed to continue in

possession on such terms as the Court may deem fit and proper and Appellant

cannot shift such bulky material within a short span of time. In paragraphs

15 and 16, following was stated:-

"15. Much to the shock and dismay of the Applicant, the Applicant Company for the first time

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 28

became aware about the Respondent Company being in liquidation, when on June 4, 2019, personnel from the office of Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay has visited the said Property for purportedly taking symbolic possession of the said property. Without prejudice to the Applicant Company's rights and contention, given the peculiar circumstances, it is submitted that if the Applicant Company is permitted to remain in possession of the said Property on such terms and conditions as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court, the same would help in maintaining the said Property and would ensure to the benefit of all parties and in particular the creditors. The Applicant has preferred this application at the earliest given opportunity without any delay or laches.

16. The Applicant Company's valuable materials are lying on the said Property. I say that it is practically not possible to shift such bulky material within a short span of time. We therefore humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the Applicant Company to remain in possession of the said Property, on such terms and conditions, as may this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Applicant humbly submits that grave and irreparable harm, loss and prejudice would be occasioned to the Applicant Company, if the possession of the said Property is taken over by the Official Liquidator. On the other hand, no such harm or loss will be caused to the Official Liquidator and the parties involved, if the reliefs as sought for are granted. The balance of convenience tilts heavily in favour of the Applicant."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 29

27. During submissions before the court, Learned Counsel for the

Appellant submits that there was oral tenancy created in favour of the

Appellant since the interest amount on the outstanding amount on the

company was to be adjusted in the rent. However, neither details of any rent

paid nor any pleading as to when tenancy was created has been pleaded or

brought on record. As noted above, the pleading of the Appellant is that it has

been occupying the premises since the company was not able to pay its

outstanding dues of Rs.1,34,86,201/-. The pleading made before the Bombay

High Court as noted above in the application filed by the Appellant itself

clearly indicate that the ingredients of creation of any tenancy in favour of the

Appellant was not even plead. Before Adjudicating Authority neither sufficient

pleading nor any material has been brought on record to prove its case of oral

tenancy. On record there is no material except letter of Company dated

22.12.2008. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Paragraph 30 of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank

of Baroda and Ors.- (2016) 3 SCC 762" which is as follows:-

"30. The issue of determination of tenancy is also one which is well settled. While Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does provide for registration of leases which are created on a year-to-year basis, what needs to be remembered is the effect of non- registration, or the creation of tenancy by way of an oral agreement. According to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a monthly tenancy shall be deemed to be a tenancy from month to month and must be registered if it is reduced into writing. The Transfer of Property Act, however, remains silent on Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 30

the position of law in cases where the agreement is not reduced into writing. If the two parties are executing their rights and liabilities in the nature of a landlord- tenant relationship and if regular rent is being paid and accepted, then the mere factum of non-registration of deed will not make the lease itself nugatory. If no written lease deed exists, then such tenants are required to prove that they have been in occupation of the premises as tenants by producing such evidence in the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Magistrate. Further, in terms of Section 55(2) of the special law in the instant case, which is the Rent Control Act, the onus to get such a deed registered is on the landlord. In the light of the same, neither can the landlord nor the banks be permitted to exploit the fact of non-registration of the tenancy deed against the tenant."

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case held that if the two parties

are executing their rights and liabilities in the nature of a landlord-tenant

relationship and if regular rent is being paid and accepted, then the mere

factum of non-registration of deed will not make the lease itself nugatory.

There cannot be any dispute to the above proposition. Present is a case where

neither there is a claim of payment of any rent by the Appellant to the

Corporate Debtor nor there is even an iota of evidence of any payment of any

rent. The claim of the oral tenancy by the Appellant is nothing but imagination

of the Appellant to somehow justify its illegal occupation. It is the Appellant

case itself that it supplied the marbles to the company till 2013 and according

to the case of the Appellant, an amount of Rs.1,34,86,201/- is due on the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 31

company, hence he was allowed to continue. Appellant has also placed

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Madan Mohan

Singh vs. Ved Prakash Arya- (2021) 5 SCC 456" where Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the agreement of tenancy can be both by writing or oral and

in the case of oral tenancy, the court has to look into the circumstances and

intention of the parties and other material to determine the existence of

tenancy. In paragraph 18, following was held:-

"18. The categorical finding recorded by the trial court is that the defendant failed to prove any documents pertaining to the tenancy. The tenancy is a relationship which is created between two parties. The agreement of tenancy can be both by writing or oral. Even if there is oral agreement of tenancy, the court has to look into the circumstances and intention of the parties and other material to conclude as to whether there was any tenancy or not. The present is not a case where the defendant claimed any rent agreement. The defendant has come up with a case that he is paying rent at the rate of Rs 450 per month. The defendant in his written statement has stated that the plaintiff has never issued any rent receipt. Thus, present is not a case where there was any rent receipt filed by the defendant in support of his claim of tenancy. The defendant himself appeared as DW 2."

29. There can be no dispute to the proposition of law as laid down but in

the facts and circumstances of the present case clearly indicate that the

Appellant was permitted to occupy the premises on the permission granted

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 32

by company to stock its marbles and materials. There are no materials or

pleadings with regard to any kind of tenancy, lease or license on record.

30. In any view of the matter, the permission granted by the Corporate

Debtor to occupy the premises shall be treated to have come to an end after

winding up petition were initiated by the order of the Bombay High Court

dated 05.10.2016 and liquidator was directed to take possession of the assets

by the High Court and liquidator proceeded to premises on 04.06.2011 to take

possession and symbolic possession was taken. After initiation of CIRP when

the Resolution Professional has issued two notices to the Appellant to vacate,

any permission to occupy the premises shall not continue and shall come to

an end. Insofar as reliance of the Appellant on various registration including

registration under MTNL, GST registration, Insurance Policy, shop

registration are concerned, they were registrations obtained by the Appellant

to carry out its business and the said registration in no manner help the

Appellant to prove any kind of right in the premises. Registration Certificate

dated 01.01.2017 under Maharashtra Shop and Establishment Act 2017 was

filed by the Appellant before the Bombay High Court. The said registration

certificate in paragraph 3 clearly provided as follows:-

"नमुना- "व" Form-B नद ों णी प्रमाणपत्र Registration Certificate (ननयम 5 (1) पहा) (See rule 5(1))

१. न द ों णी क्रम ोंक

1. Registration Number : 820324974/GS Ward/COMMERCIAL II

२. आस्थ पनेचे न व

2. Name of the Establishment: CLASSIC MARBLE COMPANY PVT. LTD.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 33

३. सदरचे न द ों णी प्रम णपत्र अर्जद र ने ऑनल ईनद्व रे अर् जस बत स दर केलेल्य (अपल ड) स्वयों-प्रम णणत दस्तऐवर् च्य प्रती व स्वयों-घ षण पन्न च्य आध रे आणण अर् जमध्ये सणवस्तर नमूद केलेल्य म णितीची आणण आस्थ पने च्य व्यवस य ची व आस्थ पने च्य र् गेची प्रत्यक्ष पडत ळणी न करत दे ण्य त आले आिे. सदरचे प्रम णपत्र िे केवळ न द ों णी प्रम णपत्र आिे व सदर न द ों णी प्रम णपत्र क णत्य िी प्रक रे म लमत्त िक्क णकव म लमत्तेच म लकी िक्क ध रण करण्य च अणधक र दे त न िी.

3. This certificate is issued base on the application and the uploaded self-certified documents and declaration given by the applicant without physical verification of the existence of est- ablishment the nature of business carried out and the details mentioned in the application. This is just a certificate of registration and does not give any right to property or possession or title of the rights of the premises or property.

४. व्यवस य सुरु करण्य त आल्य च णदन ोंक

4. Date of commencement of Business: 01.01.2017 ५ म लक चे न व : MR. AMIT MAFATLAL SHAH

5. Name of the Employer

६. व्यवस य चे स्वरुप

6. Nature of Business : BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS ७ आस्थ पनेच पत्त :03-A, SRIRAM MILL COMPOUND, GM BHOSALE MARG WORLI,

7. Address of Establishment : MUMBAI-400018 WHERTHER THE BUSINESS PREMISES/PROPERTY IS ASSESSED BY BMC: Yes MY BMC BUILDING ID: GS0400540170000 ADDRESS AS PER PROPERTY TAY SYSTEM: GS-1125(3a) 338ab.worli Road. Ansal Height"

31. Thus, the reliance on various certificates which were obtained by the

Appellant for carrying on business cannot give any right to the Appellant to

remain in possession of the assets. We, thus, are satisfied that the Appellant

has miserably failed to prove any kind of tenancy/lease/license having been

given by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Appellant, Appellant was only

permitted to use the premised only to stack its marbles as proved by letter

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 34

dated 22.12.2008 which is the only letter filed on the record issued by the

Corporate Debtor in favour of the Appellant. It is also relevant to note that

before the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, Appellant has filed

its claim of principal amount of Rs.1,34,86,201/- along with interest which

has been admitted by Resolution Professional. The claim of entire interest was

filed by the Appellant before the Resolution Professional and has been

admitted. The claim of the Appellant that he was entitled to occupy the

premises against the outstanding amount and on account of interest being

not paid itself become contradictory and cannot be accepted.

Issue No. (III)

32. Appellant has placed reliance on injunction order passed by City Civil

Court on 09.12.2025. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of the City

Civil Court, the City Civil Court has granted injunction and in view of the

interim injunction passed on 09.12.2025, Adjudicating Authority could not

have proceeded to pass orders for eviction of the Appellant. We have noticed

above that a suit before Civil Court was filed by the Appellant where date of

hearing was fixed in the application on 02.12.2025. Application was filed by

the Resolution Professional on 27.03.2025 and it was only on 01.12.2025 suit

was filed. The IBC clearly bars jurisdiction of Civil courts with respect to any

issue which is subject matter of insolvency process. Section 63 of the IBC

provides as follows:-

"63. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. - No civil court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter on

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 35

which National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction under this Code. Civil court not to have jurisdiction."

33. In any view of the matter, copy of the order is brought on record as

Annexure A-14 of the Appeal. The order of the City Civil Court dated

09.12.2025 directed as follows:-

"In the event, there will be an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause a of the notice of motion and thereby the defendant or any other person claiming through or under him is temporarily restrained from disturbing and or interfering with the plaintiffs use, occupation, possession over the suit premises till next date, save and except by following due process of law. Both parties to take note of this order. Matter adjourned to 11.12.2025 for Writ of summons."

34. The above order, thus, clearly protected the possession of the Appellant

save and except by following due process of law. The asset is owned by

the Corporate Debtor which is an admitted fact and we having held that

Resolution Professional was entitled to file an application to take possession,

the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing for taking possession of the

assets is in accordance with law, hence, the order of the said City Civil Court

in no manner could have any consequence on the order of the Adjudicating

Authority.

35. In result of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the

Adjudicating Authority has rightly after considering all relevant aspects have

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026 36

issued directions. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly issued direction in

paragraph 29 as noted above.

36. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the

Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. We direct that in event the Appellant does

not handover the vacant possession within 30 days from today, it shall be

open for the Resolution Professional to take possession of the premises with

the assistance of police who shall extend all assistance to the Resolution

Professional. No order as to costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) New Delhi

Anjali

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.187 of 2026