Soumi Dawn vs Rosedale Developers Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Soumi Dawn ....Appellant Vs. Rosedale Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Ms. Annanya Ghosh, Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Mr. Aarlin Moncy, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Shaunak Mitra and Mr. Patita Paban Bishwal, Advocates for R-4

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

20.2.2025 - I.A. No.729 of 2025

This is an application praying for condonation of 15 days' delay in filing

the Appeal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits the Appellant was not

party to proceedings hence the delay was occasioned. After coming to know about

the Order, the Appeal was prepared and the delay occasioned. Counsel for the

Respondent also do not propose to file Reply to delay application. Delay is

condoned.

Main Appeal

2. This Appeal is against the Order dated 27.11.2024 by which the

Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan of the Corporate

Debtor. The Appellant has filed this Appeal claiming to be tenant in one of the

assets of the Corporate Debtor and it is claimed that it belonged to the third 2

party Respondents No.5 and 6. It is submitted that the Appellant has challenged

the approval of Resolution Plan. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits

that the approved resolution plan shall affect the rights of the Appellant who is

in possession of the assets.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the

Respondent No.6 who is claimed to be owner according to the Appellant has

already filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority being I.A.

No.920/KB/2023 for excluding the assets from the assets of the Corporate

Debtor which application stood rejected by Order dated 15.10.2024. It is

submitted that the Affidavit was sworn in the said application by the husband

of the Appellant. It is submitted that the Appeal by the Appellant is another

attempt to create obstacles in the implementation of the plan.

4. We have considered submissions of the Counsel for the parties and

perused the record. The Appellant does not claim to be any stakeholders in the

assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant have neither filed a claim nor has

claimed any right. According to the Appellants the case itself is that the owner

of the assets has already filed an application which stands rejected on

15.10.2024. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has pointed out to para -

37 of the Order whereas the Appellant relies upon para Para - 37, 38 and 39

which are as follows:-

"37. Having heard the contention of both the parties and the law laid down above, we find that the Applicant has neither placed sufficient documents showing his ownership of the two flats nor has he placed on record 3

adequate proof of payments made by him for purchasing the said flats. On the other hand the CoC after having taking note of the imbroglio has decided to include these disputed flats in the assets of the Corporate Debtor in their 8th meeting extracted above. Noteworthy to mention that the dispute with regard to the two flats has been mentioned in para 5.3 of the Information Memorandum. This information was always with the PRAs when they decided to bid for the resolution of the Corporate Debtor.

38. Be that as it may, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned in para 35 above, it is palpably clear that the NCLT is not a forum to decide disputes culminating in an adjudication of the title to the property, and cases related to such dispute shall need to be filed before appropriate forums for obtaining reliefs.

39. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and the position of law, we are of the view that the present application is not maintainable. Hence I.A.(I.B.) No.920/KB/2023 stands rejected. Needless to say, the Applicant is free to pursue its remedies under any other law, and the dismissal of the present application shall not stand in the way of such pursuit of remedies."

5. The liberty which has been granted in the Order is to the Applicant who

has filed I.A. No.920/KB/2023 and on the basis of that liberty, no rights can be

claimed by the Appellant to challenge the resolution plan. The Resolution Plan

having approved and the Appellant not being stakeholders of the CIRP of the

Corporate Debtor, we are of the view that the Appellant has no locus to challenge

the resolution plan.

4

The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

rs/nn