9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that the Petitioner / Bank, does not have a Exclusive Charge, over the Superstructures, built upon the Land of the Corporate Debtor. It cannot be brushed aside that the Asset, subject to such Security Interest, Viz. the subject matter of the present Lis, was already relinquished by the Petitioner / Bank, in to the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor, by their own admission. To bring a Person as a Party Respondent / Defendant, in a given Legal Proceedings, is not a Substantive Right, but One of Procedure. The instant main Company appeal hovers around the issue of Eviction, of the 1st Respondent / Appellant, from the Land of the Corporate Debtor , even though, the Lease Deed , dated 30.09.2017, which had expired on 30.09.2022, and further that, the Petitioner / Bank, has a Pari Passu Charge , in respect of the Superstructures , built on the Land of the Corporate Debtor , and in any event, the Petitioner / Bank , nor the 1st Respondent / Appellant , cannot place reliance, on the alleged Rental Deed , this Tribunal , comes to an irresistible and inevitable conclusion, that the Petitioner / Bank , is not a Necessary and Proper Party , to get itself Impleaded , in the main Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s , in confirmation of the Loan Liability , which runs as follows: a). Composite Hypothecation Agreement , dated 31.03.2011. b). Guarantee Agreement , being executed by Shri. Kokkirala Preemsagar Rao, Smt. Kokkirala Surekha and Shri. S. Satyanarayana Rao dated 31.03.2011. c) Corporate Guarantee, as executed by M/s. Sainath Estate Private Limited dated 31.03.2011. d) Confirmation of Creation of second / subsequent equitable mortgage, executed by M/s. Sainath Estate Private Limited dated 31.03.2011. e) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 01.03.2017. f) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 17.12.2019. g) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 17.06.2021. h) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagyanagar Hotels Private Limited dated 20.01.2022. i) Acknowledgement of debt for all types of facilities by borrower / sureties, executed by M/s. Bhagy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e I B Code, 2016, before the Adjudicating Authority / NCLT , Hyderabad Bench, against the 1st Respondent / Appellant , which is pending for Adjudication . 13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, points out that the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator , had filed IA (IBC) No. 265 / 2023 in CP No. 651 / 7 / HDB / 2018 , before the Adjudicating Authority / NCLT , Hyderabad Bench, praying for a direction, to the 1st Respondent / Appellant , to handover the subject property , without impleading the Petitioner / Bank , in the said Petition . In fact, without the knowledge and information , of the Petitioner / Bank , the Impugned Order in IA (IBC) No. 265 / 2023 in CP No. 651 / 7 / HDB / 2018, was obtained by the Liquidator . 14. The forceful plea of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Bank (Proposed 2nd Respondent in main Appeal ) is that, since, the Land and Superstructure , belong to the Company , under Liquidation , the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent, cannot take physical possession of the same, to the detriment of the Bank s Interest . Therefore, the Petitioner / Bank , is a Necessary and Proper Party , to be impleaded in the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporate Debtor , as evidenced, by its own Sanction Letter , dated 30.03.2011. 20. In this connection, it is pointed out on behalf of the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator that the Petitioner / Bank s own Form D dated 06.08.2022 (at Page 38 of IA No. 199 / 2024), reiterates that the Bank , has only a Pari Passu Charge and has also relinquished the Asset , subject to such Security Interest , i.e. the subject matter of this lis into the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor , by their own admission. 21. According to the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator, through a Letter dated 22.12.2010 (vide in proceeding No. BPS/198/C-18/NZ/GHMC/2008), the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation , had penalised and regulated the Construction of Superstructures , built on the Land of the Corporate Debtor , for being unauthorised, and in deviation, to the Sanctioned Plan . Also that, such Penalty for Regularisation , was paid, through a Demand Draft , on the Petitioner / Bank (formerly, Syndicate Bank). Therefore, it is the stand of the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator, that the Superstructures , were erected on the Land of the Corporate Debtor , before 22.12.2010, which itself is much earlier to the sanctionin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Committee and IA 265 / 2023 in CP (IB) No. 651 / 7 / HDB / 2018, an Order , was passed on 04.12.2023, being Impugned , in the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, was in fact, filed at the behest and with the consent and consideration of the Members of the Stakeholders Committee (including the Petitioner / Bank), as evidenced by the Minutes of 6th 7th of SCC Meeting . 28. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent / Liquidator, prays for dismissing the IA No. 199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024 (filed by the Petitioner / Bank (Proposed 2nd Respondent in main Appeal ), in the interest of Justice and good conscience . Discussions : 29. The Petitioner / Bank, has filed IA No. 199 / 2024, seeking to Implead as Proposed 2nd Respondent , in main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, based on the reason that it has an exclusive charge , over the Superstructures , built by the 1st Respondent / Appellant, on the Land of the Corporate Debtor . 30. At this juncture, this Tribunal , pertinently points out that the Petitioner / Bank, in its Sanction Letter , dated 30.03.2011, had stated that, it has a Pari Passu Charge , only, on the Superstructures , built on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lux of time, on 30.09.2022, the Petitioner / Bank , is not a Necessary or a Property Party , to be Impleaded as Proposed 2nd Respondent , in the main Appeal . 38. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the instant main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024), hovers around the Issue of Eviction , of the 1st Respondent / Appellant , from the Land of the Corporate Debtor , even though, the Lease Deed , dated 30.09.2017, which had expired on 30.09.2022, and further that, the Petitioner / Bank, has a Pari Passu Charge , in respect of the Superstructures , built on the Land of the Corporate Debtor , and in any event, the Petitioner / Bank , nor the 1st Respondent / Appellant , cannot place reliance, on the alleged Rental Deed , for pressing the IA No. 199 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, this Tribunal , comes to an irresistible and inevitable conclusion, that the Petitioner / Bank , is not a Necessary and Proper Party , to get itself Impleaded , in the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024. Even, without the presence of the Petitioner / Bank ( Intervenor ), this Tribunal , is of the earnest opinion that the main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 13 / 2024, wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that, Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal vs Central Bank of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1371 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO. 9590/2015), having referred Vishal N. Kalsaria (supra), it was held that, the second case which dealt with the issue of tenants rights under the SARFAESI Act is Vishal N. Kalsaria Case (supra) . This Court was concerned with the question Whether a protected tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 can be treated as a lessee and whether the provisions of the SARFEASI Act, will override the provisions of the Rent Act? , Therefore, it is clear that the said ruling has a limited application. Even otherwise, it has been specifically held in the above ruling that, In any case, if any of the tenants claim that he is entitled to possession of a secured asset for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, if the tenant relies on an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uick Notice of three years and Refund of the Amounts spent is Mandatory . 7. According to the Appellant, the Property in question of the Respondent, i.e. the Land was in occupation of it as Tenant , for almost three decades. In fact, the multistoried building , was constructed by this Respondent at its Costs , more than a decade back and Property , is being assessed in its name by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation . That apart, the Respondent has not terminated the Lease Deed , dated 30.09.2017, before requiring the Appellant, to vacate the Premises. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, points out that a Memorandum of Understanding , dated 26.07.2012, was entered into, between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor, which proves that the entire Superstructures , Viz. All the buildings on the Leased Land are constructed by the Appellant at its own costs to be refunded by the Respondent before handing over of the possession by the Appellant, to Corporate Debtor . 9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the Appellant , is a separate and distinct Legal Entity , than the Corporate Debtor , and further that, a Company , has a distinct entity , and is indepen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raises an argument that Section 60(5)(c) of the I B Code, 2016, grants Residuary Jurisdiction , to the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal , to adjudicate any question of Law or Fact , arising only out of or in relation , to the Insolvency Resolution of the Corporate Debtor , and cannot delve in to the Civil Disputes . 16. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, points out that the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal , had failed to follow the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Guruashish Constructions (P) Ltd. (Resolution Professional) v. MHADA (2020) 13 SCC at Page 208, where there was a Tripartite Joint Development Agreement , entered into between (a) a society representing a large number of persons occupying 672 tenements in the property; (b) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short MHADA ), which was the owner of the land; and (c) the Respondent and where, after initiation of CIRP against the Respondent, MHADA issued a notice for the Termination of the Joint Development Agreement and return of the land and this Appellate Tribunal , refused to treat the Property , as the Asset of the Respondent, the Hon ble Supreme Court, reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justify the Appellant s continued possession, relies on the decision, of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. Ors. , reported in (2014), 6 SCC at Page 1, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held that as per Ss. 105 111 TPA so long as lease of immovable property, does not get determined, Lessee has a right to enjoy the property and this right is a right to property and this right cannot be taken away without the authority of law as provided, in Art. 300 A of the Constitution. Moreover, without determination of valid lease, the possession of Lessee is lawful and such lawful possession of a Lessee has to be protected by all Courts and Tribunals. 19. Apart from the above, it is further observed and held in the aforesaid decision that where before a Mortgage is created in respect of an Immovable Property and the Borrower, had already Leased out , the same, in favour of a Lessee , either as the Owner or as a Person , competent or authorised to transfer , the Immovable Property , in accordance with Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, if such a Lease is made, by virtue of Section 8 of the Transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, the Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to pass an order of eviction and it is for an Aggrieved party to move the appropriate forum redressal of its grievances in accordance with Law. In short, the Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan in utter disregard regard to the ingredient of Section 30(2) (e) of the I B Code and as hence the same was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority had appointed a Liquidator other than the Existing Resolution Professional . 10. In the meanwhile, in IA No. 42 of 2021 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 16 of 2021, on the file of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai there shall be an Order of Stay , in regard to the implementation of the Impugned Order dated 24.2.2021 in IA No. 168 / 2020 in CP(IB) 173 / 9 / HDB / 2018 and TCP(IB) No.22/9/AMR/2019 on the file of Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench). 23. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, points out the Judgment of this Tribunal dated 20.02.2020, in K.L. Jute Products Private Ltd. v. Tirupti Jute Industries Ltd. , reported in (2020) SCC OnLine, NCLAT, 426, wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 66 70, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;Resolution Process' by a 'Resolution Professional' or 'Liquidator' for seeking necessary relief pertaining to a preferential transaction by filing an Application and that the Adjudicating Authority can pass orders under Section 44 of the Code. Further a Liquidator as per Section 35 of the I B Code, a Liquidator has jurisdiction to investigate the financial affairs of the Corporate Debtor to determine undervalued or 'preferential transactions' subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of an Adjudicating Authority and these issues also answered As regards the ingredients of Section 240A of the Code it is to be pointed out that a Financial Creditor or an Operational Creditor of MSME may take it to Insolvency Proceedings before an 'Adjudicating Authority'. But the fact of the matter is that the MSME may not be pushed into liquidation thereby affecting the employees and workers of MSME and therefore, Section 240A (2) of the Code specifies that the Central Government may, in public interest by notification direct that any of the provisions of the IBC shall not apply to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises or apply to them with such modifications as may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. Anr. (vide Comp. App. (AT) (INS) No. 1417 of 2022), wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 19 to 21, it is observed as under: 19. The present is not a case where lease in favour of the Appellant is subsisting. The lease has come to an end on 31st December, 2021. Further the lease renewal in favour of the Appellant was by RP himself on 17.09.2021 (Fresh Lease) which lease contained specific clause for eviction by 15 days notice. 20. Accepting the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that RP is obliged to file a suit for eviction of the Appellant under MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 even though lease in favour of the Appellant has expired shall be unduly prolonging the insolvency process which is a time bound process. When the Corporate Debtor has the ownership rights over the premises which premises can be taken in control by IRP/RP, we are of the view that for eviction of the Appellant especially in event when lease in favour of the Appellant has come to an end, filing a suit is not contemplated in the statutory scheme contained in IBC. 21. Thus, the contention of the Appellant that RP has to file a suit for eviction of the Appellant under the MP Accom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary that insolvency proceedings are dealt with in a timely, effective and efficient manner. Pursuing this theme in Innoventive (supra) this court observed that one of the important objectives of the Code is to bring the insolvency law in India under a single unified umbrella with the object of speeding up of the insolvency process . The principle was reiterated in Arcelor Mittal (supra) where this court held that the non-obstante Clause in Section 60(5) is designed for a different purpose: to ensure that the NCLT alone has jurisdiction when it comes to applications and proceedings by or against a corporate debtor covered by the Code, making it clear that no other forum has jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of such applications or proceedings . Therefore, considering the text of Section 60(5)(c) and the interpretation of similar provisions in other insolvency related statutes, NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes, which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. However, in doing do, we issue a note of caution to the NCLT and NCLAT to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and fora when the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 30.09.2017, had expired, sought an extension of the same, from the Former Resolution Professional , and that the Appellant s Proposal, in this regard, was rejected by the erstwhile Resolution Professional. 37. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, comes out with a plea that the Loans , availed by the Appellant , were taken from the Banks, by mortgaging the Properties of the Corporate Debtor, illegally stating to the Bank ( Lender ) that the Property, belongs to the Appellant . 38. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, refers to the extract of the Financial Statement of the Appellant (Notes forming integral part of the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account as at 31.03.2019, vide Vol. II of the Appellant s Appeal Paper Book at Page 316, which reads as under: Term Loan from the Bank Viz. Syndicate Bank is secured by a pari passu first charge on immoveable properties (land and Building) of the Company situated at (1) H.N.1-8-322 to 1-8-329, 1-8-331 to 1-8-335, Devadi Iqbaluddolula, Begumpet, Secunderabad, and (2) land situated at Plot A/16, Nacharam Industrial Development Area, Nacharam Village, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring 12099.32 Sq. Yards. 39. The Learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , has filed the instant Appeal , without Application of mind and with the sole view of stalling the Due Process of Law , whereby, the Respondent, is entitled to take control and possession of the Property , in question. 45. Furthermore, the Appellant , has failed to make out any case, in seeking the relief of setting aside the Impugned Order , dated 04.12.2023 in IA (IBC) 265 / 2023 in CP(IB)/651/7/HDB/2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench, and thereafter, the instant Appeal , is liable to be dismissed, by this Appellate Tribunal , in the interest of Justice and good conscience . Respondent s Decisions : 46. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, refers to the Judgment dated 11.08.1995 of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (vide Civil Appeal Nos. 7701 7702 / 1995), reported in (1995), 5 SCC at Page 698 at Spl Pg.: 700, wherein, at Paragraph No.8, it is observed as under: 8. A tenant at sufferance is one who comes into possession of land by lawful title, but who holds it by wrong after the termination of the term or expiry of the lease by efflux of time. The tenant at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ors., AIR (1952) Travancore 359 and also on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mrs. Thayarammal v. People's Charity Fund, AIR (1978) Karnataka 125, All the same, we may briefly deal with them. In the case of Sivjnanam Abraham Anr v. Mathevan Pillai Bhoothalingam Pillai (supra), the Court was not directly concerned with the interpretation of Section 69 sub-section (2) of the Partnership Act. The question before the Court was whether on the determination of the lease erstwhile tenant was liable to restore the possession of the property to the plaintiff. Analysing the landlord's claim for recovery of possession on determination of tenancy, it was observed in para 7 that : 7. The landlord's claim for recovery of possession of the properties from a tenant on the determination of tenancy need not be based on any contract expressly entered into in that behalf. The right of the landlord to get and the liability of the tenant to surrender possession of the properties leased, on the determination of the tenancy, is inherent in the very relationship of landlord and tenant and will be implied by the law. This is known as the rule in Henderson v. Squire, (1869) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Judge in the said decision has taken the view following this Court's decisions that on the expiry of the lease, the erstwhile lessee cannot be said to be in lawful possession within the meaning of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act (23 of 1964). It is of course true that while referring to Section 108(q) of the Property Act it has been observed that on the expiry of the lease period, the lessee was bound to put the lessor into possession of the property and that it would be an implied term of the contract. It imposes an obligation in law on the erstwhile tenant to restore possession to the landlord. 48. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, seeks in aid, of the Judgment dated 11.09.2019 of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India , in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India Anr. (vide Criminal Appeal No. 1371 / 2019 - Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 9590 / 2015), wherein, at Paragraph 21 25 (c), it is observed as under: 21. Before concluding, the Court in Harshad Govardhan Case (supra), distinguished the implications of a registered and an unregistered instrument/oral agreement, in the following manner: 36. We may now consider the contention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right affecting Party, it must be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption, by third parties and have some degree of permanence or stability . Insolvency Act , 1986 ( United Kingdom ) : 50. Section 436 of the Insolvency Act, 1986 (United Kingdom), defines Property includes, money, goods, things in action, land and every description of property wherever situated and also obligations and every description of interest, whether, present or future or contingent, arising out of or incidental to property . Assessment : 51. Before the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal , the Respondent / Liquidator , of M/s. Sainath Estates Private Limited, had filed IA (IBC) No. 265 / 2023 in CP (IB) No. 651 / 7 / HDB / 2018 (under Section 60(5), r/w. Section 35 36 of the I B Code, 2016, r/w. Regulation 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Regulations), 2016, and R.11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016), wherein, the following reliefs, were sought for: (a) Allow the instant application. (b) To direct the Respondent to handover the possession of property mentioned herein to liquidator. (c) To direct the Respondent to pay the arrears of rentals till the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant / Company , had also filed the Audited Balance Sheet , for the year 2018-19 dated 06.06.2019. All these, clearly prove that the entire Superstructure Viz. all the Buildings on the Lease Land , were constructed by the Appellant / Company , at its own costs, to be refunded by the Corporate Debtor, before handing over of the possession , by the Appellant / Respondent to the Corporate Debtor . 57. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant / Company, that the IA (IBC) No. 265 / 2023 in CP (IB) No. 651 / 7 / HDB / 2018, filed by the Respondent / Liquidator , seeking directions from this Tribunal , to direct the Appellant / Respondent / Company, to handover possession of the Property , is not maintainable , because of the fact that the various official documents , (including that of State and Central Governments and the VAT Registration, TAN Registration, etc., issued by various Govt. Authorities, Licence for Sale of IMFL , Trade Mark Certificate , Food Licence Certificate , Professional Tax Registration Certificate Service Tax Registration , and these documents, were filed prior to the Written Agreement of Lease , being drawn up in the year 2017, will show that the Appellant / Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany, on or before 29.01.2024. 62. In the present case, Regulation 9 (c) of the Liquidation Regulations, clearly mandates, cooperation , from persons, in regard to, the conduct of the Liquidation , and if such a cooperation / assistance , is not extended, the Liquidator , can prefer a Petition / Application , before the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal , as per Regulations, praying for necessary reliefs. Powers and Duties of Liquidator : 63. Section 35 of the I B Code, 2016, is analogous to Sections 167, 168, 169 and 170 of the UK Insolvency Act, 1986. The ingredients of Section 167 (3) of the Insolvency Act, 1986 (United Kingdom), mentions, that the Powers showered by Section 167 are subject to the control of the Code and any Creditor or Contributory , may apply , to the Court, in regard to any exercise or proposed exercise of those Powers . 64. Not resting with the above, Section 168 (5) of the Insolvency Act, 1986 (UK), postulates that a Person Aggrieved , by an Act of Decision , of the Liquidator, may apply , to the Court , and the Court , may affirm , modify or alter , the decision or act complained of, and pass such Orders, as it deems fit. However, a similar provision is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n , then, in Law , he is not entitled, to be in Possession of a Secured Asset , for more than the specified period. 73. It cannot be ignored that in the present case, the Memorandum of Understanding , dated 26.07.2012, cannot survive beyond 26.06.2013, even if it is an Unregistered one. Even the Registered Lease Deed , dated 30.09.2017, entered into between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor , had expired on 30.09.2022, without any renewal / extension or waiver , as the case may be. 74. It is well settled Proposition of Law that when the Appellant s Lease Deed dated 30.09.2017, had lapsed on 30.09.2022, the Appellant is not in Lawful Possession of the Corporate Debtor s land. Indeed, the Appellant / Company, had addressed a Letter dated 04.10.2021, to Dr. K. V. Srinivas (Resolution Professional) for M/s. Sainath Estates Private Ltd., pertaining to the 1st Lockdown and 2nd Lockdown, imposed due to Covid-19, seeking (waiver of rent), and also referred to several Government Orders, issued by Govt. of Telangana and India, in this regard, based on the reason that the Appellant / BHPL , had to shut down activities, for around 251 days, due to the force majeure event of Covid-19 , and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
