Js Trust vs Sanjai Kumar Gupta Resolution ...

IN THE MATTER OF: J.S. Trust & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Sanjay Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellants : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Mr. Amjid Maqbool and Ms. Yashvi Aswani, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Rahul Auddy and Mr. Aditya G., Advocates.

Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Ms. Saheli Sen and Mr. Rajib Mullick, Advocates for R-2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

30.01.2025 : Heard Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Raghenth Basant

appearing for the Appellant and Learned Counsel Mr. Shaunak Mitra

appearing on behalf of the RP.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 25.11.2024 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 2279/KB/2024. Only direction

which is sought to be impugned in the Appeal is, direction issued by the

Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 2 e, which is as follows:

"2. IA(I.B.C)/2279(KB)2024 e. For the time being, Resolution Professional is not permitted totake custody and control of the factory in question. The order is restricted to have an access to the said piece of land and factory premises."

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order submits that

the premises were owned by the Appellant who had earlier granted a lease to an entity from which under the DRT sale the Corporate Debtor has obtained

the leasehold rights which leasehold right has now come to an end, therefore,

the RP has no right to even enter into the premises and the Adjudicating

Authority has passed the Order without giving a opportunity to the Appellant

to have its say.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Mitra submits that on the land which was in the

leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor factory and plant was operational

and for finding out what are the Assets of the Corporate Debtor, the RP has

to look into the premises and visit the place. It is submitted that the

Adjudicating Authority has allowed Appellant to file Reply within two weeks

although Order was passed on 25.11.2024 but no Reply has yet been filed

and the matter has already been posted for 02.01.2025 and now it is posted

for 11.02.2025.

5. In the facts of the present case, only direction which has been issued

by the Adjudicating Authority is restricted to the access to the said piece of

land and factory premises by the RP. We are of the view that no expectation

can be taken to the said direction since unless the RP has access to the

premises and the factory premises he cannot effectively prosecute his

Application and the submission of the Appellant that even access be not

allowed does not commend us.

6. The Appellant has already been given time to file the Reply. It is open

for the Appellant to file its Reply and take all pleas including that Application

does not deserves to be entertained.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 12 of 2025 2 of 3

7. We make it clear that at this stage, we are not expressing any opinion

on the merits on the contention of the Parties which may be considered and

decided by the Adjudicating Authority while deciding the Application finally.

However, at this stage, we see no reason to interfere with the direction issued

in Paragraph 2 e.

The Appeal is dismissed with the above observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 12 of 2025 3 of 3