Prateek Gupta vs Petrolube India Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The ownership of fixtures claimed by a stakeholder is to be determined on the record before the adjudicating authority: where a lease of land makes no mention of structures affixed to it, and the claimant adduces no material showing that those structures belong to him rather than the corporate debtor, they are treated as part of the liquidation estate and may be dealt with accordingly by the liquidator. An appellate challenge to an adjudicating authority's order sanctioning a liquidator's sale of assets fails where the appellant has not placed material before the appellate forum to displace the findings on ownership, and where the objections raised on his behalf were already considered by the adjudicating authority at the time of the order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Prateek Gupta and Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
Petrolube India Ltd. Liquidator Ashwani Gupta ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Kunal Tandon and Ms. Richa Sandilya, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Asmita Duggal, Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Liquidator in person.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
28.03.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned
counsel appearing of the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the
order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-III by which the I.A. No. 2431/2020
has been decided. The I.A. was filed by the Liquidator seeking permission to
conduct private sale of some of the assets of the Corporate Debtor comprising
of the Storage Tanks having liquidation value of Rs.16,19,728/- which were
lying at Petrolube India Limited, Nangloi, Delhi and Furniture Fixtures. The
Adjudicating Authority considered the Application and granted the permission
as sought by the Liquidator to conduct private sale of the assets. Aggrieved
by the said order, the Appellant- Ex Director of the Corporate Debtor has come
up in this Appeal.
Cont'd.../ 2
2. Shri Kunal Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
submits that five storage tanks belong to the landlords/owner of the land and
did not belong to the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that only 60 plastic
Storage Tanks belong to the Corporate Debtor with regard to which there is no
dispute. It is submitted that the steel storage tanks which are fixed in the
land were also part of the land and they belong to the owner of the land i.e.
the Promoter. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority has committed error in
passing the impugned order granting permission. It is also submitted that no
opportunity was granted to the Appellant before passing such order.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent refuting submissions of the learned
counsel for the Appellant submits that when the Rent Agreement of the land
was executed there was no mention of these five steel storage tanks in the
agreement and only land was let out. It is submitted that steel storage tanks
belong to the Corporate Debtor and hence they are to be sold in the liquidation
process and permission for private sale was sought for which includes these
five steel storage tanks. It is submitted that when e-auction notice was issued
on 10.02.2020 and 08.03.2020, five steel storage tanks were very well included
in it and no proceedings were undertaken by the Appellant at that stage
4. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
5. The Rent Agreement executed between the parties has been filed at
Annexure-5, which indicate that Lessor is the owner of the property 19/3, Ram
Nagar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi which was decided to be let
out to the second party on the monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- per month for a
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2021 3
period of 12 months. In the Rent Agreement there was no mention of five steel
storage tanks which is now sought to be claimed by the Appellant. The Rent
Agreement clearly indicates rent was only for the land i.e. 500 sq yards, which
is share of the Lessor. The steel tanks were part of the liquidation estate,
hence when e-auction notice was issued on 10.02.2020 and 08.03.2020, the
said storage tanks were specifically included in the e-auction notice. Request
for private sale of the assets was sought by the Liquidator which permission
was granted by the Adjudicating Authority. There is no material on the record
to support the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that five steel
storage tanks did not belong to the Corporate Debtor and they belong to the
promoter i.e. the Appellant. We note that at the time of passing of the order,
the counsel for the Appellant had appeared before the Adjudicating Authority
raised objection on behalf of the Ex-Management which have also taken into
consideration. We find no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority
allowing I.A. No. 2431/2020. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is
dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2021
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