9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1566 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyRestraint on respondent from disturbing the possession of the RP in properties mentioned in MOU - assignment of development rights of the properties to the corporate debtor - HELD THAT - Till admission of the corporate debtor in CIRP, MOU dated 24.01.2008 was not cancelled /revoked by the respondents. Hence, the corporate debtor remained in possession of the properties for the purpose of their development. Upon corporate debtor's admission in CIRP, RP came in possession therein by virtue of statutory provisions under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Hence, respondents cannot disturb / obstruct RP's possession in those properties. Corporate Debtor is having development rights of the properties. It is intangible assets of the corporate debtor. RP holds same development rights relating to those properties. He has to proceed with the CIRP of the corporate debtor and invite resolution plan on the basis of those rights. The respondents cannot obstruct his possession and activities in any manner. The respondents (or any other person acting through them) shall not obstruct RP's possession and his activities relating to CIRP of the corporate debtor, until further orders, failing which the local police are directed to give every assistance to the RP for completion of CIRP of the corporate debtor effectively - Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
Admission of corporate debtor in CIRP due to default in payment of financial debt. Application for direction to restrain respondents from disturbing possession of RP in properties. Dispute over possession of properties based on MOU. Interpretation of rights and possession under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Application for modification of previous order regarding rightful possession of properties. Admission of Corporate Debtor in CIRP: The Tribunal admitted the corporate debtor into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to default in paying a financial debt of ?2,21,45,755. The Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed to manage the insolvency proceedings, and his appointment was confirmed by the Committee of Creditors (COC). Application for Direction to Restrain Respondents: The RP filed an application seeking direction to restrain Energy Properties Pvt. Ltd. and its directors from disturbing his possession in properties mentioned in a MOU dated 24.01.2008. The respondents, who were the original owners of the properties, started obstructing the RP's possession after the corporate debtor's admission into CIRP. Dispute Over Possession Based on MOU: The respondents claimed possession of the properties, alleging that the corporate debtor failed to develop them as per the MOU. However, the Tribunal noted that until the corporate debtor's admission into CIRP, the MOU was not cancelled by the respondents, allowing the corporate debtor to remain in possession for development purposes. The RP, after the admission in CIRP, came into possession of the properties, and the respondents could not disturb this possession. Interpretation of Rights under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code: The Tribunal clarified that the corporate debtor held development rights of the properties, which were intangible assets. The RP, in managing the CIRP, had the same development rights and was authorized to proceed with the resolution plan based on those rights. The respondents were prohibited from obstructing the RP's possession and activities related to the CIRP. Application for Modification of Previous Order: Another application was filed for modification of a previous order regarding the rightful possession of properties. The Tribunal held that the RP was in legal and rightful possession of the properties, and the applicant's possession and activities in a specific piece of land were not affected by the order. The Tribunal directed the respondents not to obstruct the RP's possession and activities related to the CIRP, and allowed the applicant to continue its business activities on the land based on a leave and license agreement. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of both applications, confirming the RP's possession rights and allowing the applicant to continue its business activities. The orders emphasized the RP's authority in managing the CIRP and the protection of possession rights under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
