9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y i.e. from RIICO for the breach of contract by the Corporate Debtor HELD THAT:- Although, Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently reiterated that the stand taken by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority but the fact remains that on 01.12.2015, after the cancellation of the lease deed, the Corporate Debtor had no right or interest in the demised premises much less for the purpose of creating a third-party interest by entering into an agreement of management with the Appellant on 01.04.2017. As a matter of fact, the Appellant is to sink or swim with the Corporate Debtor. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 779 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2022 - [Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) And [Mr. Kanthi Narahari] Member (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Land Rules, 1979 before the Managing Director of RIICO which was dismissed on 19.05.2017. 5. A second appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor against the order dated 19.05.2017 before the Chairman of RIICO was also dismissed on 16.03.2018. 6. The account of the Corporate Debtor in the meantime was declared as Non-performing Asset (NPA) and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) were initiated. Symbolic possession was taken by the secured creditors on 09.03.2017. Axis Bank executed an assignment agreement in favour of Asset Care Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd. (ACRE) on 27.03.2017 who sent a letter on 08.06.2018 to the unit head of RIICO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within 30 days which was challenged by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 9955 of 2021 before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur and also filed I.A. No. 646 of 2021 under Section 60(5) of the Code. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 18.09.2021 giving liberty to the RP to approach the Adjudicating Authority to protect the property in question. 9. It is pertinent to mention that the application bearing I.A. No. 646/AHM/2021, filed by the RP in which various prayers were made and Section 14(1)(d) of the Code was invoked. The said application was dismissed by the same impugned order dated 31.03.2022 against which the RP filed an appeal bearing CA (AT) (Ins) No. 510 of 2022 which was heard and reserved earlier than the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of cancellation of allotment on 01.12.2015. It has been held that the act of the Appellant, entering into such an agreement and allegedly investing huge amount without any due diligence with regard to status of the property cannot be accepted as defence and that the Appellant might have a grievance against the Corporate Debtor but cannot seek repossession of the demise premises which has been taken into possession lawfully after termination of lease long back on 01.12.2015. 12. Although, Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently reiterated that the stand taken by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority but the fact remains that on 01.12.2015, after the cancellation of the lease deed, the Corporate Debtor had no right or intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
