2021 (4) TMI 524 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Right of respondent on common road - disturbance or hindrance to the Resolution Professional or to any of his staff or security personnel in any manner caused or not - HELD THAT - Schedule -1 property details and position which is filed in the Reply Affidavit at page 42 that site map has been filed with shows that on the south side of the plot there is a common road, this fact has not been denied by the Appellant. This fact has also been mentioned in the Title Deed, so taking this fact and all the submissions advanced by the parties, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly pass the impugned order. The proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority and this Tribunal is summary in nature as to follow strict time line. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant have failed to make out any ground and the finding recorded by Ld. Adjudicating Authority - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the common road usage by the Respondent.
2. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Applicability of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.
4. Validity of the Title Deed and the existence of the common road.
5. Continuous trespass by the Respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the common road usage by the Respondent:
The appellant argued that the respondent had no right to use the common road within the corporate debtor's property, as there was no such common road in existence according to the revenue records and "Aks Shajra". However, the respondent contended that the registered sale deed dated 09.10.2015 mentioned a common road on the south side of the plot with a width of 26 ft. 10 inches, which they had been using continuously since June 2015 without any interruption. The Adjudicating Authority found that the sale deed indeed mentioned the common road and, unless declared invalid, the respondent's usage could not be objected to.

2. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
The appellant submitted that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had the jurisdiction to decide the matter under Section 280 of the Companies Act, 2013, as amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The respondent, however, argued that the appropriate jurisdiction for the dispute was the Civil Court at Derabassi. The Tribunal affirmed the jurisdiction of the NCLT to adjudicate the matter, as per the provisions of the IBC.

3. Applicability of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC:
The appellant invoked Section 14 of the IBC, which imposes a moratorium on the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. They argued that the respondent's actions violated this moratorium. The Tribunal, however, did not find any merit in this argument, as the respondent's usage of the common road was based on a registered sale deed and did not constitute a new suit or proceeding against the corporate debtor.

4. Validity of the Title Deed and the existence of the common road:
The appellant challenged the validity of the Title Deed, arguing that it did not show any common road in the site map or "Aks Shajra". The respondent countered by stating that the Title Deed explicitly mentioned the common road, and the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not deny this fact. The Tribunal concluded that the sale deed's mention of the common road was valid, and the respondent's usage could not be objected to unless the sale deed was declared invalid.

5. Continuous trespass by the Respondent:
The appellant alleged continuous trespass by the respondent, who had broken the wall and opened a gate inside the corporate debtor's premises. The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were based on the registered sale deed, which mentioned the common road. The Tribunal ruled that the respondent or its employees could not create any disturbance to the corporate debtor or its staff, but their usage of the common road could not be objected to unless the sale deed was invalidated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's order, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal held that the registered sale deed mentioned the common road, and the respondent's usage of it could not be objected to unless the sale deed was declared invalid. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the impugned order.

← Previous Next →