Mahesh B Khairnar & Ors vs Mr. Dhaval Jitendrakumar Mistry & Ors

Mahesh B. Khairnar & Anr. ....Appellants Vs.

Dhaval Jitendrakumar Mistry & Ors. ...Respondents

For Appellants Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Reley, Mr. Sumit Misra, Mr. Harsh Gautam, Mr. Akshay Lodhi, Mr. Tanish Rawat, Mr. Amey Shejwal, Mr. Prakhar Agrawal, Advocates.

For Respondents Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Kashish Chadha, Mr. Aditya Shah, Mr. Devang Shrotriya, Mr. Raghav Bansal, Advocates for R2 Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Advocates for R1 Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Ms. Rubina Khan, Mr. Shivendra Nath Mishra, Mr. Sameer Mishra, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.09.2026: I.A. No.7009 of 2026:- This application is moved by the

Appellant to take on record the Appellant's undertaking to pay, within 45 days,

an amount of Rs.73,09,02,581/-, being an amount payable under the

Resolution Plan after deducting the value attributable to the leased area,

measuring approximately 22,962 sq. mtr. which has already been handed over

to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and also to grant appropriate

interim protection in respect of the remaining portion of the subject property 2

admeasuring 57,438 sq. mtr. and pending disposal of the Appeal and direct

the Respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the physical

possession, nature and character thereof and refrain from creating any third

party rights therein.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the Information

Memorandum of the Corporate Debtor wherein it says the size of the plot in

the three Lease Deeds executed in favour of the Corporate Debtor amounts to

22,962 sq. mtr. and whereas the entire land is approximately 80400 sq. mtr.

and hence, it is urged the balance of 57,438 sq. mtr. exclusively belong to the

Applicant and as such be protected from being handed over to the SRA.

3. We note earlier also this issue was raised in the Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No.1464 of 2026 wherein after hearing the Applicant, it was

directed the possession, if handed over, to the Successful Resolution Applicant

shall be subject to the result of the said appeal and an Affidavit in this regard

was to be obtained from the Successful Resolution Applicant. The said order

dated 11.08.2026 specifically notes the following:-

"This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 21.07.2026. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits he has received an email where through police department the entire land of 80,400 sq. mtrs. is going to be possessed by Chairman of the Monitoring Committee. He has referred to the Information Memorandum dated 23.10.2024 which records the summary of assets and liabilities of the Corporate Debtor as on commencement of the CIRP under Regulation 36(2)(a) of the CIRP Regulations, I.A. No.7009 of 2026 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2044 of 2025 3

2016 wherein it is mentioned land owned by the promoters having lease hold rights of the Corporate Debtor is 80,400 sq. mtrs. Learned counsel for the Appellant also referred to the details of the lease deed executed wherein it is stated 22,962 sq. mtrs. of the land was leased out.

2. However, the learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits there is another contract dated 15.07.2010 wherein 36,420 sq. mtrs. of the land was given on contract basis to the Corporate Debtor. Such record is not filed before us. In any case, the learned counsel for the Resolution Professional has referred to an order dated 21.01.2026 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2044 of 2025 against the approval of the Resolution Plan which records let the resolution plan be implemented. Admittedly, there is no challenge to such order dated 21.01.2026, though the learned counsel for Appellant urge there was no requirement of filing appeal against that order and now he has filed this appeal since by the impugned order an application filed by the Monitoring Committee to obtain possession of the remaining land has been allowed. It is submission of the learned counsel for the Resolution Professional that the impugned order is nothing but an implementation of the plan, as is noted in the order dated 21.01.2026 of this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2044 of 2025."

4. The said order dated 11.08.2026 was taken in Appeal before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and such Civil Appeal No.10713 of 2026 was dismissed vide

order dated 17.08.2026.

I.A. No.7009 of 2026

IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2044 of 2025 4

5. It is rather the case of the respondents that since the applicant was

creating obstructions in the peaceful handing over of possession of the land to

the Successful Resolution Applicant, hence, a Writ Petition (L) No.30059 of

2026 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay which

notes as under:-

"14. We find that the NCLAT, in its aforementioned orders, has indicated that the resolution plan shall be implemented and physical possession of the said property shall be taken subject to the result of the pending appeal. Hence, we are inclined to issue appropriate directions to the concerned authorities for taking physical possession of the said subject property, which would obviously be subject to the pending appeal before the NCLAT.

15. In view of the above, we direct that possession of the aforesaid immovable property shall be taken by the petitioner on 29.09.2026 at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner shall physically remain present for taking possession of the said property for which the respondent No.3 i.e. Police Inspector of Nashik Taluka Police Station shall provide necessary police assistance, including providing lady constables. Sufficient police personnel shall be provided to assist the petitioner in taking physical possession of the said immovable property. The police shall use necessary, adequate and proportionate force, if required, to execute the said direction of this Court.

17. As directed by the NCLT in its order dated 21.07.2026, we also direct that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 i.e. ex-directors and any third parties shall cease I.A. No.7009 of 2026 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2044 of 2025 5

and desist from obstructing the exercise to be undertaken by the petitioner with the assistance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, as directed hereinabove for taking physical possession of the subject immovable property on the date and time indicated hereinabove."

6. Considering the above, the relief sought for in the application cannot be

allowed as this would amount to undoing the earlier orders passed not only

by this Tribunal but also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Thus, we are not inclined to

entertain this application and accordingly it is dismissed.

List the Appeal as already fixed on 27.10.2026.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

(Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Anjali/md

I.A. No.7009 of 2026 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2044 of 2025