International Asset Reconstruction ... vs G. Gunasekaran & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 901 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay of two days in preferring the appeal is condoned where counsel's grounds are found satisfactory. Where the appellant has already handed over possession of the disputed property to the Resolution Professional, the Appellate Tribunal will not decide, at that stage, whether the appellant's leasehold right or the ownership of the property lies with the Corporate Debtor, as that question is not necessary to dispose of the appeal. Under Section 18 of the I&B Code, the Interim Resolution Professional's duty to take control and custody extends to assets of the Corporate Debtor having ownership rights, and by the Explanation to that section, "assets" excludes assets owned by a third party in the Corporate Debtor's possession or held under trust or contractual arrangements; a third party claiming such assets may still claim them, and it is for the IRP/RP to determine, applying Section 18 and its Explanation, whether they belong to the Corporate Debtor.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
G. Gunasekaran & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Mr. Anshuman Mohit Chaturvedi and Ms. Sonali Khanna, Advocates
ORDER
03.09.2019 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and being
satisfied with the grounds, the delay of 2 days in preferring the appeal is
condoned.
I.A. No. 2736 of 2019 stands disposed of
Pursuant to the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Appellant -
'International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.' (Financial Creditor) took possession
over the property admeasuring 34.20 acres bearing Survey Nos. 174/3A, 3B,
174/1, 180/4, 180/5, 174/3A, 174/4, 176/3A, 3B, 3C and 3D at Thirali II,
Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai Distt.. The Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai on an application filed by the
'Resolution Professional' by impugned order dated 17th July, 2019 directed the
Appellant to hand over the possession of the said property on the ground that
the ownership of the property is lying with the 'Corporate Debtor'.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the
property in question was leased by 2nd Respondent - 'Thiagarajan Murugesan' in
favour of the 'Corporate Debtor' by 'Lease Deed' dated 1st June, 2000. The 2
'Corporate Debtor' has 'lease hold right' over the property but is not the owner of
the property. However, we are not inclined to decide such issue at this stage, as
we find that the Appellant has already handed over the possession of the
property in question in favour of the 'Resolution Professional'.
In terms of Section 18 of the 'I&B Code', it is the duty of the 'Interim
Resolution Professional' to take control and custody of any asset of the
'Corporate Debtor' having ownership rights which includes the assets which may
or may not be in the possession of the 'Corporate Debtor'. As per 'Explanation'
given below of Section 18 for the purpose of that section, the term "assets" does
not include the assets owned by a third party in possession of the 'Corporate
Debtor' or held under trust or under contractual arrangements. If the assets in
question belong to 'Corporate Debtor' - '2nd Respondent' it will always open to
2nd Respondent to claim the same and the 'IRP'/ 'RP' will decide whether it
belongs to the 'Corporate Debtor' taking into consideration the provisions of
Section 18 including the 'Explanation' given below it.
For the said reasons, except for explaining the provisions, no further
interference is required. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
dated 17th July, 2019. The appeal stands disposed of.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical) /ns/gc
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 901 of 2019
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free