Mrs Tajinder Kaur And Anr vs M/S Five Core Electronics Limited And ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 763 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the NCLT Rules, 2016 cannot entertain and grant a prayer for possession of, or payment for occupation of, property held by the corporate debtor where the applicant has no agreement with the corporate debtor and has not established title to the property through such an agreement; in the absence of such a contractual basis, the Adjudicating Authority lacks power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and the Code to adjudicate the claim.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mrs. Tajinder Kaur & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Five Core Electronics Ltd. Through Resolution Professional & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Varun Mehlawat, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Amar Nath, Advocate.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
15.07.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against the order dated 18.04.2022 by which order the I.A. No. 1150
of 2021 filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Bench-II. In the I.A.
No. 1150 of 2020 Appellant/Applicant has prayed for following reliefs:
"(a) Allow the present application by directing Mr. Manoj Kulshreshtha, Professional Resolution to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property Khasra No. 26/5, Mahinder Singh Park, Village Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh, New Delhi to the Applicants and further direct him to pay the rent or charges for occupation of the said premises to the Applicants @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date when the possession of the said premises
Cont'd.../ 2
was taken from the DRI till the date of handing over of the possession to the Applicants;"
2. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professionals has also been heard.
Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that Appellant could
not prove his title to the property by bringing on record any agreement in this
regard. He further submits that there is no agreement between the Corporate
Debtor and the Appellant so as to grant the prayers as made in the
application.
3. Adjudicating Authority has also observed that since there was no
agreement between the Corporate Debtor and the applicant, the Adjudicating
Authority cannot exercise its powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016
and IBC to consider the prayer of the Applicant.
4. The present is a case where prayer of the Applicant having not been
considered in the IBC, we do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating
Authority rejecting the prayer made in Application I.A. No. 1150 of 2021. We,
however, observe that it is open to the Appellant to take such remedy and
recourse as permissible under law with regard to his rights. With these
observations, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 763 of 2022
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