Miss Lucy
← All judgments

International Asset Reconstruction ... vs G. Gunasekaran & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal3 September 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 901 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

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