9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1027 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyPrayer for interim temporary injunction - Lease agreement - Corporate Debtor disturbing peaceful possession of the appellant in respect of subject land, or not - Lease agreements only notarised not registered. In sum and substance it has been argued that once the appellant had entered into lease rent agreement with Corporate Debtor/landlord and agreed to pay monthly rental as Rs.55000/- the appellant continued as tenant of the Corporate Debtor and such tenancy was not required to be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority. HELD THAT - Considering the fact that in another appeal which was filed by the Appellant i.e. Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.861/2022 which is already taken note of two rent agreements dated 27.07.2014 and 26.07.2019 which we have considered prima facie as fraudulent documents and noticing the same, it is directed for enquiry by the Delhi Police Commissioner which judgement has been delivered only today i.e. 24th July, 2023, there is no need to go further in detail and this appeal in terms of judgement passed in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.839/2022 and 861/2022 stands dismissed. In this appeal also the appellant has placed on record two lease rent agreements vide Annexure A-2 and A-3 - Let a copy of this order be also communicated to the Delhi Police Commissioner for its needful with a direction to the learned Registrar of this Tribunal to render full assistance and providing necessary documents as and when approached by the Delhi Police doing enquiry or investigation.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the tenancy agreements and whether they were undervalued transactions. 2. Whether the eviction of the tenant was justified under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 3. Whether the application for reliefs was filed within the stipulated timeline under Regulation 35A of CIRP Regulations. 4. Whether the tenant had any rights to the property post-CIRP initiation. Summary: Validity of Tenancy Agreements and Undervalued Transactions: The primary issue was whether the tenancy agreements between the Corporate Debtor (CD) and T-RMC Private Limited were undervalued and fraudulent. The Resolution Professional (RP) argued that the agreements were created to defraud creditors, citing that the rent was grossly undervalued at Rs. 55,000 per month compared to the fair market rent of Rs. 4.85 lakh per month. The RP also highlighted that the agreements were unregistered and unstamped, and executed after the CD's account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The Tribunal found that the agreements were indeed undervalued transactions intended to defraud creditors, thus falling under Sections 45 and 49 of IBC. Eviction of Tenant: The RP sought eviction of T-RMC from the premises, arguing that the tenancy agreements were fraudulent and that T-RMC was occupying the land without proper legal basis. The Tribunal ordered T-RMC to vacate the premises within 30 days and directed the local authorities to assist in the eviction if necessary. The Tribunal also ruled that the Resolution Applicant would not be liable for any responsibilities related to T-RMC, including its employees and contractors. Timeline for Filing Applications: The appellant contended that the applications were filed in contravention of the timelines stipulated under Regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations. However, the Tribunal noted that the timelines under Regulation 35A are directory and not mandatory, thus allowing the applications to proceed. Tenant's Rights Post-CIRP Initiation: The appellant argued that it was a legitimate tenant and had continued to pay rent even after the initiation of the CIRP. The Tribunal, however, found that the tenancy agreements were fraudulent and created with the intent to defraud creditors. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the RP's decision to terminate the tenancy and ordered the eviction of T-RMC. Additional Orders: The Tribunal directed T-RMC to pay an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000 per month from the date of tenancy creation until the date of handing over possession. The Tribunal also dismissed another application (I.A. (IB)429/KB/2022) as infructuous, as the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Separate Judgement: In a related appeal (Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.861/2022), the Tribunal found the rent agreements to be prima facie fraudulent and directed an enquiry by the Delhi Police Commissioner. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the RP's actions, finding the tenancy agreements to be undervalued and fraudulent, and ordered the eviction of T-RMC from the premises. The applications were found to be within the permissible timeline, and the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claims, reinforcing the RP's and Resolution Applicant's rights under the IBC.
|
