Jasmeet Singh Marwah vs Nuway Organic Naturals (India) Ltd. ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 574 & 575 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Jasmeet Singh Marwah ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Nuway Organic Naturals (India) Ltd. Corporate Debtor ...Respondent(s) & Ors. Present: For Appellant : Mr. P. N. Agesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suhas Puthing, Mr. Shour Yaditya, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Anjali Maurya, Advocates for R1 & R2

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.03.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing

for Resolution Professional.

2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, challenging the order dated

19/02/2026, passed in I.A 1290/2025 and I.A. 2626/2024.

3. The aforesaid I.As were filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating

Authority praying for exclusion of an asset referred to Chhatarpur property.

4. The Applicant's case was that said property, situated in Delhi, does not

belong to Corporate Debtor and Resolution Professional has illegally taken

symbolic possession of the same

5. Various prayers were made in both the Applications. Adjudicating

Authority heard the Parties and by the impugned order, has rejected both

Applications, aggrieved by which order these Appeals have been filed.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, challenging the order submitting that in

the Balance Sheet of the Corporate debtor, the assets were not shown and Jamabandi and all revenue records was also in the name of the Appellant. It is

further submitted that the asset, with regard to which CD claims their title, is

already under cloud, pending for adjudication before the Delhi High Court.

7. Ld. Counsel for RP submitted that Adjudicating Authority, to protect the

interest of the Appellant, has already passed appropriate directions in

Paragraph 17 and the Resolution Plan itself contain a clause that Resolution

Applicant shall pursue the litigation on behalf of the corporate debtor and

however, shall abide by the result of the litigation.

8. We have heard the Counsels for the Parties and perused the record.

9. In Paragraph 17 of the judgement, Adjudicating Authority directed as

follows :

"17. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view

that the disputes raised by the Applicant, insofar as they relate to the

ownership of the disputed Chhatarpur property which is already sub judice

before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, cannot be adjudicated by this

Adjudicating Authority in exercise of jurisdiction under the Code and require

determination before the appropriate civil forum. The Applicant, in the present

Application, has not sought any adjudication on the validity of the sale deed as

such, but has confined the relief to a direction for exclusion of the said property

from the scope and ambit of the Resolution Plan. It is further noted that upon

approval of the Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, the

management and control of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the Successful

Resolution Applicant, who has undertaken to pursue and continue the pending

2 of 4 litigation concerning the said disputed property and to abide by its ultimate

outcome. The Resolution Plan, duly approved by the CoC under Section 30(5)

and presently pending approval before this Adjudicating Authority in IA(PLAN)

10 of 2025, expressly records the pendency of CS (OS) No. 7948 of 2015 before

the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and provides that the said proceedings shall be

pursued by the Resolution Applicant after approval of the Plan. In such view of

the matter, this Adjudicating Authority cannot grant the relief of exclusion as

sought, particularly when the Resolution Plan itself duly records the pendency

of the civil litigation and the Successful Resolution Applicant has undertaken to

pursue the same and abide by its final outcome, thereby safeguarding the

Applicant's interest and leaving the rights of the parties to be determined by

the competent civil court."

10. When the litigation, with respect to immovable property situated in

Delhi, is pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court, the said issues

cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority, and we are of the view

that rights of the Appellant are amply protected by observations and

findings as Paragraph 17 of the order. Hence we are of the view that

Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the

Application, which however as stated in Paragraph 17, shall be subject to

ultimate decision in the pending litigation to which SRA has undertaken to

be bound by.

3 of 4

11. Ld. Counsel for Resolution Professional submitted that physical

possession is with the RP. He further submitted that correct suit No. is

1948 of 2015 pending in Delhi High Court.

12. With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

13. Appeal dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

4 of 4