Pawan Kumar Goyal vs Suprabhat Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Pawan Kumar Goyal, Liquidator of Sunshine Infrabuild Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Suprabhat Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Mr. Pawan Kr. Goyal and Mr. Markandey Kr. Singh, Advocates.

For Respondent : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.08.2024 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 11.06.2024, by which

Order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected I.A. No. 893/2022, which was

filed by the Liquidator.

3. Liquidator has filed an Application seeking a direction for payment of

an amount of Rs.2,41,40,000/- with respect to Sale Deed executed on

09.11.2015 and in alternative prayed for cancellation of the Sale Deed.

4. Adjudicating Authority held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process (`CIRP') in the present case commenced on 17.12.2019 and the Sale

Deed which was executed on 09.11.2015 could not have been cancelled by

the Adjudicating Authority.

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

in the Reply which was filed by the Respondent who was Purchaser there has

been conflicting claims and in the Sale Deed no consideration was received by the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that in the Balance Sheet of the

Respondent Company the amount was shown as payable.

6. We have considered the submission and perused the record.

7. The Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 4 (ii) & (iii) has returned

following findings:

"4. Analysis and Findings ii. There is no dispute to the fact that the agreement to sell with respect to the property in question was executed for a price of Rs. 2,41,40,000/- and the sale deed was executed on 09.11.2015. The Liquidator has filed the present application in the year 2022 i.e. seven years after, the sale deed was executed. The CIRP in this case was initiated by this Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 17.12.2019 and the liquidation order was passed on 15.12.2020. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sale of the property in question falls within the CIRP period.

iii. Further, the Liquidator in this application has prayed for a direction to the Respondent to pay of Rs. 2,41,400,000/- or in the alternative cancel the sale deed. Accordingly, to our considered view the Liquidator seeks to recover the amount or in the alternative seeks a declaration for setting aside the sale deed for which the Liquidator ought to have filed either a suit for recovery or a suit for declaration seeking appropriate reliefs for cancellation of the sale deed. Thus, it is clear that the Liquidator has erroneously invoked the provisions of Section 60(5) of IBC."

8. The Liquidator could have taken leave of the Court to take appropriate

proceeding against the Respondent Company as per the law. However it was

not open for the Liquidator to make an Application for cancellation of the Sale

Deed which was executed on 09.11.2015 which is one of the reasons given by

the Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the Application. We thus, do not find

any error in the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in dismissing the

Application.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1508 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5471 of 2024 2 of 3 The Appeal is dismissed.

It shall be open for the Liquidator to take such remedy as available in

law with the leave of the Court.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1508 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5471 of 2024 3 of 3