9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I B Code? - HELD THAT:- The Tea Gardens which have been leased out to the Corporate Debtor are Tea Garden which are owned by the State of West Bengal. The Corporate Debtor does not have any Ownership Right in the Tea Garden hence the main sub-Clause (f) of Section 18 does not cover the Tea Garden. However, the definition in Section 18 (f) is inclusive definition which is apparent in the expression including occurring in the end of sub-Section (f) and sub-Clause (iv) refers to Intangible Assets including Intellectual Property. The Leasehold Rights are Intangible Assets, which is now a settled proposition of law. The present is the case where Tea Gardens are owned by State of West Bengal and the Corporate Debtor claimed possession by virtue of Contractual Arrangement i.e., Lease Arrangement. In the present case, thus whether by virtue of explanation to Section 18(1) of the IBC, Tea Gardens had to be excluded from the definition of Assets is a question to be answered. The submission which has been advanced by the Respondent is that Leasehold Rights of the Corporate Debtor had come to an end by efflux of time on the date, when CIRP commenced, hence the provision of Section 18(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly, at the time of renewal, which was dated 15.11.1995, the Notification dated 01.06.1994 was already enforced, adding Clause 1-A and 1-B in the Form-1, requiring payment of Salami of Rs.15,000/- per hectare at the time of execution of lease. However, in the renewed Lease Deed, as extracted above dated 15.11.1995, it is clear that although expression Salami has been used in the Lease Deed, but no amount of Salami was mentioned and only rent was mentioned, which was @ Rs.13,180 per annum. It is further relevant to notice that renewed Lease Deed was executed on behalf of State by Additional District Magistrate Additional Collector, Jalpaiguri - the execution of Lease by Additional District Magistrate and Additional Collector, Jalpaiguri was on behalf of the Governor, who was competent to execute the lease. Earlier, original leases were also executed by District Authority of similar designation. Renewal of Lease Deed of Kilcott with effect from 15.11.1995 till 23.08.2025 and renewal of Lease Deed of Garganda, with effect from 08.11.1996 to 08.09.2026 and renewal of Lease Deed of Bagarcote from 19.06.1998 till 22.05.2028 are valid renewals and the Corporate Debtor shall have subsist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, we have already considered and held above that the leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor, subsisting in three Tea Gardens namely Garganda, Kilcott and Bagarcote. Hence, the Applications filed by the RP, insofar as above three Tea Gardens, deserve to be allowed. Whether possession taken by the Sammelan and Marico subsequent to order dated 05.03.2020 is in violation of provisions of Section 14 of the I B Code with respect to Tea Gardens except the four Tea Gardens which were subject matter of IA No.1256/KB/2020? - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor has subsisting rights in three Tea Gardens, i.e., Garganda, Kilcott and Bagracote-I as noticed above. Although, possession of Garganda was taken prior to enforcement of moratorium, but possession of Kilcott and Bagaracote was taken respectively on 03.11.2021 and 01.07.2021 as noticed above. The Corporate Debtor has subsisting rights in the above leases of Bagaracote and Kilcott, which were renewed. Hence, after the enforcement of the moratorium on 05.03.2020, the possession of Tea Estates of the Kilcott and Bagaracote could not have been taken. It is true that the State was the owner of Tea Estates and due to suffering of labour, the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porate Debtor subsist in three Tea Gardens, namely- Garganda, Kilcott and Bagracote, where the lease has been renewed and valid as follows: 1. Garganda valid upto 08.09.2026; 2. Kilcott valid upto 23.08.2025; and Bagarcote Div. I valid upto 22.05.2028. The orders rejecting the IAs of RP insofar as the aforesaid three Tea Gardens are concerned are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside - appeals disposed off. - [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson And [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Mr. Gautam Narayan and Mr. Amit Kasera, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mrs. Maninder Acharya and Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocates for State of West Bengal. Ms. Shreya Garg, Advocate. Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Advocates for UNIGLOBLE/ Mr. Jishnu Saha Sr. Advocate with Mr. Usha Nath Banerjee, Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. Soumya Dutta, Mr. Ishaan Saha and Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Advocates for R1. Mr. Ajay Gaggar and Mr. Shreedhar Gaggar, Advocates for SBI. JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. These Appeals have been filed by Ram Ratan Modi, Resolution Professional of Duncans Industries Ltd.- (Corporate Debtor) challenging vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rungli Rungliot Tea Garden has been rejected. 7. All the orders which are impugned in these Appeals arises out of the same CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor in CP (IB) No.184/KB/2018, hence Appeals have been heard together. 8. Before we notice respective submissions of the Counsel for the parties, we need to notice the background facts and sequence of the events which are relevant for consideration of the issues which have arisen in these Appeals. 9. The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 provided for the State acquisition of estates, of rights of intermediaries therein and of certain Rights of raiyats and under raiyats [and of the rights of certain persons in lands comprised in estates.]. The estates acquired under the Act also included the land comprised in a Tea Garden, by virtue of Section 6(3) in the case of land comprised in a tea-garden, the lessee shall be entitled to retain only so much of such land as, in the opinion of the State Government, is required for the tea-garden, as the case may be. The State Government provided lease hold rights under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 as amended from time to time. In the present Appeals, Nine Tea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular the tea gardens * and managed by M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. And whereas, the Tea Board under direction of the Central Government caused inspection of all the seven gardens owned by M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. and submitted a report; And whereas, a report on the status of stressed tea gardens in West Bengal was also received from the Stare Government of West Bengal; And whereas, the situation of the said ten gardens has been assessed by the Central Government on basis of the report of the Tea Board and the State Government of West Bengal and consultations with the stakeholders of tea sector. And whereas, the Central Government is of the considered opinion that the tea gardens as listed below are being managed in a manner highly detrimental to the tea Industry and to public interest: (i) Birpara Tea Estate (ii) Garganda Tea Estate (iii) Lankapara Tea Estate (iv) Tulsipara Tea Estate (v) Huntapara Tea Estate (vi) Dhumchipara Tea Estate (vii) Demdima Tea Estate Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 16B of the Tea Act, 1953 (29 of 1953), the Central Government hereby authorises the Tea Board to take immediate steps to take over the management ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 15.11.1995. The collector of Jalpaiguri noticing that Salami which were required to be paid for Kilcott Tea Garden has not been paid. A notice dated 04.08.2016 was issued to Manager Kilcott Tea Garden by the Collector, Jalpaiguri asking the management to pay Salami amounting to Rs.57,25,711/-. Similar demand notice was issued on 10.08.2017 by the Collector Jalpaiguri to the Corporate Debtor with regard to Bagracote Tea Garden Division-I which was claim to be renewed on 19.06.1998 for 30 years. By the notice dated 10.08.2017, Salami of Rs.25,67,000/- was demanded by the Collector. 12. Due to agitation of plantation workers and labourers meeting was convened by the Department of Labour in which Labour Commissioner, Registered Union, workmen and officers of the Tea Board participated and decision was taken to handover the management of few Tea Gardens to Merico Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 13. An application was filed by the Resolution Professional being IA No.1256/KB/2020 where along with other prayers in prayer (a), following was prayed by the Resolution Professional:- a) To Pass an order under Section 19(3) read with Section 25(2) of the Inso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns is operating the Tea Gardens. In IA No.1111/KB/2021, following prayers were made by the Resolution Professional:- a) To Pass an order directing the eviction of the Respondent No.1 from the Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates and to handover the possession, operation and management of the Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates to the Applicant herein; b) To Pass an order directing the Respondent No.4 to extend all assistance and co-operation to restore the possession, operation and management of the Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates in favour of the Applicant herein; c) The Respondent No. 6 of the concerned district be directed to provide necessary help and assistance to the applicant and or to his men servants and agents to forthwith take over position of the said Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea gardens; d) The police officers and Respondent No. 6 of the concerned district and the local police station be directed to ensure that the respondent No. 1 and/orit's menservants and agents and/or any third party does not have any access to the said Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea gardens and is not able to enter or possess or seize the assets thereof or to carry on business with the assets and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and the Trade Union of the two Tea Gardens, Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. is in possession of the two Tea Gardens and that the Tea Gardens started functioning from 03.11.2021 and has been in operation. In paragraphs 48 to 51 of the judgment following have been observed:- 48. It is an admitted fact that a similar application had been filed for possession of four tea gardens. The Corporate Debtor is in financial stress and it is of concern whether the Resolution Professional would be able to run these two Tea Estates. 49. The lease given to the Corporate Debtor has not been renewed in favour of the Corporate Debtor hence, it is out of question that the Resolution Professional can take possession of the Tea Gardens to which the Corporate Debtor has no ownership. 50. On perusal of the records it is apparent from the proceedings of the tripartite review meeting held on 20.12.2021 in respect of Killcott Tea Garden and Nagaisuree Tea Garden, in the presence of the Trade Unions, Additional Labour Commissioner, North Benchal Zone Government of West Bengal, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Malbazaar, and the Managers of the respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e management was entrusted to M/s. Merico Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. with regard to four Tea Estates i.e. Hantapara, Garganda, Tulsipara and Dumchipara with the knowledge and concurrence of the State of West Bengal and the Tea Board, the management of remaining three Tea Estates including Birpara Tea Estate were not entrusted to any one by the corporate debtor and the said three Tea Estates for all practical purposes were kept closed. It was due to the Corporate Debtor not depositing the statutory Provident Fund, Birpara Tea Estate was abandoned since 06.10.2019 and it was due to the above reason, a meeting held on 12.02.2021 in the presence of Industry Department and the Labour Union, at the instance of District Magistrate, it was decided to entrust the management to M/s. Merico Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. who was successfully running other four Tea Gardens. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties by the impugned order has rejected the IA No.415/KB/2021. Adjudicating Authority held that the applications raising similar question in IA No.1256/KB/2020 and IA No.1111/KB/2021 has already been decided. The lease granted in favour of the corporate debtor in Birpara Tea Estate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd due to unrest of the workmen, high-powered meeting was convened on 27.06.2021 consisting of officials of Labour Department, workers, registered union in which decision was taken to run and manage Bagracote Tea Estate and to resume operation through Respondent No.1 who resumed the operation from 01.07.2021. Adjudicating Authority heard the application and by order impugned has rejected the application. In paragraphs 20 to 24 of the impugned order, following has been observed:- 20. During the course of hearing it was noticed that, in this application also, the question of law is similar to the one in I.A.(IB) No. 1256/KB/2020 and I.A. (IB) No. 1111/KB/2021. These two applications have already been decided after hearing exhaustive arguments of the learned Senior Counsel. Since the arguments are common and issue involved is conclusively covered by the order passed by this Bench earlier, there is no need to once again give more and more time for hearing the same arguments on behalf of the Resolution Professional and the Respondent No. 1. 21. We have thus briefly heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and perused the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en renewed. Resolution Professional cannot take possession of Tea Garden and Application was rejected. 21. Challenging the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Resolution Professional. 22. We have heard Shri Ramji Srinivasan, Learned Senior Advocate with Shri Gautam Narayan and Shri Amit Kasera, Advocates for the Appellant. Mrs. Maninder Acharya, Learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee have appeared for State of West Bengal. Shri Jishnu Saha, Learned Senior Advocate has appeared for Sammelan Tea and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Merico Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Shri Ajay Gaggar and Shri Shreedhar Gaggar, Learned Advocates have appeared for State Bank of India, Intervenor. Shri Amar Dave, Learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Advocate has appeared for Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, Intervenor. 23. Learned counsel for the Appellant s submissions are common to all the appeals except some additional submissions advanced in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 672 of 2022, which we shall additionally notice. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the I B Code, which required to be reversed. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on order dated 28.05.2021 passed in IA No.1256 of 2020 while rejecting subsequent application filed by the Resolution Professional whereas IA No.1256 of 2020 pertain to possession of four tea gardens, possession of which were handed over to the Merico prior to initiation of CIRP and the order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.1256 of 2020 was clearly distinguishable. The leases which were granted to the Corporate Debtor were heritable, transferable and provided for a deemed and automatic renewal for a further period of 30 years. Renewal applications were made prior to expiry of the lease period. The submissions of the State of West Bengal that nonpayment of salami invalidates the valid and continuing renewal of the lease deeds granted in favor of the Corporate Debtor are entirely devoid of merit. There is no legal basis to the claim of Sammelan and Merico to the tea gardens. The Adjudicating Authority on 03.03.2022 had directed the Respondent No. 1 to submit documents in regard to its right to tea gardens. No documents could be produced by Respondent No.1 which can e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of four tea gardens. Without possession of tea gardens by the Resolution Professional, CIRP process cannot proceed and culminate in to resolution. Lease in respect to Garganda tea estate was renewed on 08.11.1996 which is valid till 18.09.2026. The Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the clear import of the submissions made by the Appellant regarding the agreement entered into between the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant in the Information Memorandum has already given the details of leases regarding different tea gardens and the Information Memorandum also noticed that the State of West Bengal is claiming that renewal of lease with regard to two tea gardens is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his submissions has relied on judgments of this Tribunal and Hon ble Supreme Court which we shall notice while considering submissions in detail. 24. Mrs. Maninder Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for State of West Bengal refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Corporate Debtor had no right to any of the tea gardens after expiry o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that tea estates which are subject matter of these appeals are not assets of the Corporate Debtor of which the Resolution Professional can seek to exercise any control under Section 18(1)(f) of the Code. All the tea gardens belong to State of West Bengal who is sole and absolute owner in terms of the provisions of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act Rules 1954. All the leases have expired prior to commencement of the CIRP, which estates does not constitute assets of the Corporate Debtor. Purported renewal of lease deed of Kilcott, Bagracote and Garganda tea estates in view of the Corporate Debtor being in breach of statutory provisions of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act Rules 1954, cannot be read to be valid renewal. Information Memorandum itself mention that with regard to Garganda and Bagracote-I that: as per Land department of GoWB, Kolkata, renewal are not done properly . With regard to Kilcott, in reference to renewal dated 15.11.1995, District Magistrate Collector, Jalpaiguri issued letter dated 04.08.2016 to the Corporate Debtor to deposit the salami which having not been deposited no valid renewal can be claimed. The submission of the Resolution Professional that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.593 of 2022. The application is filed by State Bank of India and Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. The Applicants have extended financial facilities to the Corporate Debtor. The Applicants support the Appellants contention and pray that order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority be set aside, it was further submitted that Nagaisuree and Kilcott tea gardens along with leasehold rights were mortgaged to the State Bank of India. 27. We have heard Shri Amar Dave, learned counsel appearing of the Intervenor - Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, who claim to be the Successful Resolution Applicant in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted by learned counsel that the State of West Bengal has filed an application i.e. IA No.8/KB/2023 seeking exclusion of the tea estates belonging to the State from the purview of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, which application has been rejected on 26.04.2024, against which the State has filed an appeal, which is pending consideration. 28. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has opposed the IA filed by the State Bank of India as well as IA filed by Uniglobal Papers Private Limited. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H EXPIRY DATES Name of Tea Estates Name of Lessee Date of Execution Effective From Date of Expiry Garganda Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. 19.07.1974 20.09.1965 19.09.1995 Dhumchipara Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 06.12.1975 13.09.1974 12.09.2004 Huntapara Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 25.11.1980 03.12.1974 02.12.2004 Tulsipara Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 26.02.1980 18.04.1974 17.04.2004 Birpara Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 25.11.1980 27.06.1978 26.06.2008 Bagracote I Bagracote Tea Co. Ltd. 19.02.1973 22.05.1968 22.05.1998 Bagracote II Bagracote Tea Co. Ltd. 11.10.1974 04.08.1970 04.08.2020 Bagracote III IV Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 27.02.1980 24.02.1976 24.02.2006 Runglee- Rungliot Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 24.08.1973 09.02.1970 08.02.2000 Kilcott Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 22.08.1965 24.08.1965 21.08.1995 Nagaisuree Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 30.01.1975 31.10.1972 30.10.2002 33. Information Memorandum was prepared by the Resolution Professional, which Information Memorandum has also been brought on the record. Information Memorandum also notices the nine tea gardens and the date of validity of the lease deeds.It is useful to extract the status of tea estates as reflected in the Information Memorand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree tea gardens i.e. Kilcott, Bagracote and Garganda issue of renewal of lease has been raised. Both the parties have advances rival submissions with regard to renewal. From the submission of learned counsel for the parties and materials on record following are issues which arise of consideration: 1. Whether the Corporate Debtor has lease hold right in the Tea Gardens, which are assets of the Corporate Debtor which need to be taken control by the Resolution Professional under Section 18(f) and Section 25 of the I B Code? 2. Whether with regard to those Tea Gardens where period of lease has come to an end before commencement of the CIRP and application for renewal has been filed by the Corporate Debtor, the lease shall be deemed to be renewed since no decision has yet been taken by the State of West Bengal either accepting or rejecting the application? 3. Whether renewal of the lease deed of Kilcott Tea Estate w.e.f. 15.11.1995 till 23.08.2025 has to be treated to be valid renewal, similarly, renewal of lease deed of Garganda w.e.f. 08.11.1996 to 18.09.2026 has to be treated as valid renewal and renewal of lease deed of Bagrakote Tea Division-I dated 19.06.1998 has to be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t IRP to take control and custody of Assets over which the Corporate Debtor has an Ownership Rights as recorded in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor. The Tea Gardens which have been leased out to the Corporate Debtor are Tea Garden which are owned by the State of West Bengal. The Corporate Debtor does not have any Ownership Right in the Tea Garden hence the main sub-Clause (f) of Section 18 does not cover the Tea Garden. However, the definition in Section 18 (f) is inclusive definition which is apparent in the expression including occurring in the end of sub-Section (f) and sub-Clause (iv) refers to Intangible Assets including Intellectual Property. The Leasehold Rights are Intangible Assets, which is now a settled proposition of law. 40. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of ` Victory Iron Works Ltd. Vs. `Jitendra Lohia Anr. in (2023) 7 SCC 227 . The Hon ble Supreme Court in above case had occasion to consider right to develop an immovable property. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the Development Rights created in favour of the Corporate Debtor are assets, within meaning of expression Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestions framed in Paragraphs 16.1(1) 16.2(2) is as follows: 16.1. (1) What is the nature of the right or interest that the corporate debtor has over the property in question, for the purpose of deciding the inclusion of the same in the information memorandum prepared by the resolution professional under Regulation 36 of the Regulations?; and 16.2. (2) Whether NCLT and Nclat have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them in law by seeking to recover/protect the possession of the corporate debtor? 44. In Para 42, the Hon ble Supreme Court ultimately held after considering the several other statutes came to conclusion that Development Rights created in favour of the Corporate Debtor constitutes Property within meaning of Section 3(27). In Paragraph 38 of the Hon ble Supreme Court while answering Question No. 1, laid down as follows: 38. From the sequence of events narrated above and the terms and conditions contained in the agreements entered into by the parties, it is more clear than a crystal that a bundle of rights and interests were created in favour of the corporate debtor, over the immovable property in question. The creation of these bundle of rights and interests was actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsisting on the date of commencement of the CIRP. Law mandates taking custody and control of the Assets i.e., the Leasehold Rights of the Corporate Debtor which are subsisting on the date of commencement of CIRP. 48. The submission which has been advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the present case is not that Leasehold Rights are not covered by Section 18(1)(f) and Section 25 of the IBC. The submission which has been advanced by the Respondent is that Leasehold Rights of the Corporate Debtor had come to an end by efflux of time on the date, when CIRP commenced, hence the provision of Section 18(1)(f) and Section 25 does not empower the RP to pray for possession and custody and control of the Assets. The question as to whether the Leasehold Rights in the 9 Tea Gardens which are subject matter of this Appeal subsists, shall be considered when we enter into the other issues framed in the Appeal and our discussion on the issue is confined to the legal principal which is advanced before us. In view of the forgoing discussions, we answer Question No.1 as follows: The subsisting Leasehold Rights in the Tea Garden of the Corporate Debtor are Assets of the Corporate Deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other monies payable by the Lessee/Lessees hereunder and all expenses in connection with inspections, survey and measurements may he recovered as a public demand under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act or and statutory modification thereof for the time being in force. (c) That if at any time the lands and hereditaments cease to be used by the Lessee/Lessees as a tea- garden, the lease shall determine forthwith. 51. The Lease was registered on 25.10.1975 with the sub-Registrar Office, District Jalpaiguri. 52. Case of the Appellant is that Application for renewal was filed before the expiry of the term of the Lease. The Clause 16 of the Lease as extracted above clearly indicates that Lease shall be entitled to renewal for further period of 30 Years subject to the rules and terms and conditions of the Lease and such other terms and conditions as the State Government may from time to time consider it necessary to impose and include in such renewed lease or leases. 53. Thus, the Clause itself contemplates that renewal is not automatic nor Clause 16 contains concept of extension of the Lease. Renewal has to be made by the State in such terms and conditions as State Government ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the pendency of this indenture in clause 20 of the agreement is significant. In the absence of a document renewing the original agreement for a further period of 5 years and in the absence of any declaration from a court of law that the original agreement stood renewed automatically upon the appellants exercising their option for grant of renewal, as is the case of the appellants, they cannot be granted relief of injunction, as prayed for in the suit, for the simple reason that there is no subsisting agreement evidenced by a written document or declared by a court. If there is no such agreement, there is no question of enforcing clauses 15 and 20 thereof. The appellants ought to have prayed for a declaration that their agreement stood renewed automatically on exercise of option for renewal and only on that basis could they have sought an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and operation. Having not done so, they cannot be permitted to camouflage the real issue and claim an order of injunction without establishing the subsistence of a valid agreement. In the instant suit as well they could have sought a declaration that the agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of which read as follows:- 18. We fully agree with the High Court and the first appellate court below that on expiry of period of lease, mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent months in which the lessee continued to occupy the lease premises cannot be said to be a conduct signifying assent to the continuance of the lessee even after expiry of lease period. To the legal notice seeking renewal of lease, the lessor gave no reply. The agreement of renewal contained in Clause (7) read with Clause (9) required fulfillment of two conditions; first the exercise of option of renewal by the lessee before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local Mukhia or Panchas of the village. The aforesaid renewal Clauses (7) (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression agreement to the contrary used in Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under the aforesaid clauses option to seek renewal was to be exercised before expiry of the lease and on specified conditions. 19. The lessor in the present case had ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. 26. In the present case, as per the plaintiff no Demand Draft was sent with the aforesaid communication dated 11.8.2012 though the letter mentions so. The defendants have asserted that the Demand Draft was sent. The defendant, however, agrees that the Demand Draft has not been encashed. Hence, there is no acceptance in the present case. 27. Hence, firstly the communication dated 11.08.2012 does not stipulate any communication to renew the Lease Agreement. It merely purports to send rent for a certain period. Further, as per the legal position stated above even if the rent has been sent and accepted by the plaintiff it would not have implied automatic renewal of the lease deed. Further a mere communication to renew the lease does not imply renewal of the Lease-Deed. The alleged attempt to renew is also made after expiry of the Lease Deed and contrary to the renewal clause in the Lease Agreement. I have no hesitation in holding that the lease of the suit property never stood renewed. 57. The law is thus well settled that when original Lease Deed contemplates the renewal of the Lease, the renewal has to be in accordance with the terms of renewal as contemplated in the Lease in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1954 were framed and the same were published in the Official Gazette vide Notification dated 28-5-1954. Rule 4 of the said Rules inter alia provides that the land retained by an intermediary under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be held by him from the date of vesting on the terms and conditions specified in the Rules. So far as the tea garden is concerned, it has been specifically provided that an intermediary shall hold such land on the terms and conditions set out in Schedule F appended to the Rules. Therefore, for better appreciation, Schedule F and Form 1 for the purpose of granting lease for tea garden have been reproduced here: SCHEDULE F [Rule 4] 1. Land comprised in a tea garden retained by an intermediary under sub-section (1), read with sub-section (3), of Section 6 shall be deemed to be held directly under the State from the date of vesting as a tenant [until a lease is granted in Form 1 appended to this schedule, on such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Collector in a summary settlement, and thereafter, on a lease being granted in Form 1 appended to this schedule, on the terms and conditions specified in such lease]. There sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with law. In Paragraphs 30 to 33, following was held: 30. As noticed above, the State Government by notification dated 1.6.1994 brought amendment in the Rules by incorporating two more conditions i.e. paragraph 1A and 1B. As per the additional condition, in case of fresh lease granted by the State in respect of tea garden, the lessee shall be liable to pay salami at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per hectare of the land leased out. However, paragraph 1-B made it clear that in case of transfer of leasehold interest, the transferee shall not be liable to pay salami during the unexpired period of lease, but after the expiry of the existing period of lease the transferee shall be liable to pay salami at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per hectare before the lease is further renewed. 31. Admittedly, before the expiry of the lease in question in 1998, the respondent/transferee stepped into the shoes of the original lessee in the year 1990. In 1994, by notification dated 1.6.1994, an amendment was brought in Schedule F of the Rules, as discussed hereinabove, in terms of clause I-B. Therefore, the respondent shall not be liable to pay salami during the unexpired period of lease up to 1998. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh grant though it breathes life into the operation of the previous lease or licence granted as per existing appropriate provisions of the Act, rules or orders or acts intra vires or as per the law in operation as on the date of renewal . 63. The Hon ble Supreme Court ultimately held that the Lessee was liable to pay salami and demand made by Collector was justified. The Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court had upheld the amendment in Schedule F of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rule 1954 with effect from 01.06.1994, providing for payment of salami for renewal of the Lease. It is relevant to notice that in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority 28.05.2021, rejecting I.A. 1256/KB/2020 filed by the RP, submission on behalf of the RP was made that leases were not renewed due to demand of salami imposed by State for renewal of the Agreement. Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 2.15 noticed the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and has also noted the challenge to the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules 1954, amendment to Schedule F. Para 2.15 in the order of the Adjudicating Authority is as follows: 2.15. Mr. Joy Saha submits that the lease deed with respect to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Information Memorandum published by RP as extracted above, there were only three Tea Gardens, whose lease was valid beyond 05.03.2020, i.e., on the date of initiation of CIRP. As per Information Memorandum, leases of following Tea Estates were valid: Sl. No. Tea Estate Valid upto 1. Garganda 08.09.2026 2. Kilcott 23.08.2025 3. Bagarcote Div. I 22.05.2028 68. Against above three Tea Estates, there was asterisk put in the Information memorandum, which asterisk reads as per Land Department of Government of West Bengal, Kolkatta, Lease renewal are not done properly . 69. The period of other leases had come to an end much before 05.03.2020. The submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that renewal have been granted with the aforesaid three Tea Estates by execution of Registered Renewal Lease Deed, hence, the above three Tea Estates are clearly assets of the Corporate Debtor and the RP was entitled to take possession of above three Tea Estates. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that insofar as Tea Estate of Garganda, the possession of the said Tea Estate was handed over by Corporate Debtor itself by Bipartite Agreement in favour of Merico much befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itaments to the Government of West Bengal hereinafter referred to as the Government ). AND WHEREAS the Government of Notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, vested in the State of West Bengal the land and hereditaments mentioned and described in Schedule A here from all encumbrances AND WHEREAS under sub- section 6 of the said Act the State Government has issued and order allowing the LESSEE to retain out of the lands of Schedule A the lands mentioned and described in Schedule B hereunder. AND WHEREAS under sub-section (2 of section 42 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1958, Rs.9,152.56 (Rupees Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two and Paisa Fifty Six only was assessed as the rent payable by the Lessee annually for the part of the land and hereditaments described in Schedule A herein written allowed to be retained under Sub-section 3 of section 6 of the said Act. 71. As per Form-1, Schedule-F, the lease was for period of 30 years from from 24th day of August, 1965, which is clearly mentioned in the Lease Deed itself. The Lease Deed was on yearly rent of Rs.9152 and paisa 56 payable in two equal instalments on or before 31st August and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irty years from the 24th day of August, 1995 yielding and paying thereof the clear yearly rent of Rs. 13,180.00 (Rupees Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty) only without any deduction payable in two equal instalments on or/before (a) 30th June and 31st December (b) 31 August and 28th February in each and every year. And the Lessee/Lessees to the intent that the obligation may continue throughout period of the demise doth/do hereby agree and covenant and agree with the lessor as follows:- 1. That the lessee/lessees shall pay- (a) The said rent at the times and in the manner aforesaid. (b) All arrear rents, if any, at the above rate at the times and in the manner as the State Government may direct and (c) Other rates, taxes and assessments that are now, or may at any time hereafter be, assessed charged or imposed on the said demised land and hereiditaments, against proper receipts from the collector for the amounts paid No.payment shall be recognised by the lessors without such receipts. (1A) When the lease of a tea garden is determined and the tea garden is leased afresh to a new lessee, the later shall be liable to pay salami at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 per hectare of the land le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is proved to have been occupied by the lessee. 9. That Lessee/Lessees shall at all times allow the Officers of the Government of West Bengal authorised on that behalf free and undisturbed access to the said lands and hereditaments for purposes of inspection, survey and otherwise. 10. That the Lessee/Lessees shall in such form as may from time to time be prescribed by the said Government furnish the collector with full information as to births and deaths in the lands and hereinditaments and as sot the progress of cultivation outturn of tea. 11. That the Lessee/Lessees shall furnish proper and suitable accommodation for the residence of chaukidars, if ay be found necessary to be appointed in such gardens to carry out the duties imposed under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1956. 12. That the Lessee/Lessees shall not sub-let the said land and here ditaments of any part thereof. Provided that lands comprised in the said lands and hereditaments may be licensed out for growing cardamom thereon. So, however, that in respect of any land so licensed out the lesseee shall pay rent at the rate of fifteen rupees per acre but shall not realised from he licensee any fees exceeding by more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 and 7. The State pleaded in the counter affidavit that all the leases of nine tea gardens, came to an end and terminated by efflux of time, prior to commencement of CIRP, i.e., on 5th March, 2020. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, in the tablur form, lease that expired and dates has been mentioned and in paragraph-8, it was pleaded that leasehold interest in all the Tea Gardens has come to an end. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit are as follows: 6. That the particulars of the leases for 30 years, in respect of the aforesaid Tea Estates granted by the Government of West Bengal, to the Corporate Debtor and its merged companies are set out hereunder: RESPECTIVE LEASES WITH EXPIRY DATES Name of Tea Estates Name of Lessee Date of Execution Effective From Date of Expiry Garganda Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. 19.07.1974 20.09.1995 19.09.1995 Dhumchipara Bipara Tea Co Ltd. 06.12.1975 13.09.1974 12.09.2004 Huntapara Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 25.11.1980 03.12.1974 02.12.2004 Tulsipara Lankapara Tea Co. Ltd. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 26.02.1980 18.04.1974 17.04.2004 Birpara Birpara Tea Co. Ltd. 25.11.1980 27.06.1978 26.06.2008 Bagracote I Bagraco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enter into a fresh appropriate valid Lease in respect of the said Tea Garden. The Corporate Debtor willfully failed and neglected to do so. Neither the said Notice nor the invalidation of the purported renewal of lease so obtained illegally and malafide was challenged by the Corporate Debtor knowing fully well that there had been factual noncompliance of the statutory preconditions and as such purported renewal of Lease in respect of the Kilcott Tea Estate so obtained was void, illegal and unenforceable. A copy of the letter dated 4th August, 2016 issued by the District Magistrate Collector, Jalpaiguri, is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R- 2 75. Thus, the plea, which was taken by the State is that the renewal of lease is ex-facie contrary to law in force and in gross breach of the mandated statutory provisions as embodied in Rule 4 read with Schedule F of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act Rules 1954. It was further pleaded that office of District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri has issued a notice to the Manager, Kilcott Tea Garden to pay an amount of Rs.57,25,711 towards required Salami. The copy of the letter dated 04.08.2016, which was written to the Manager, Ki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No.2548 of 2006 in the matter of State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Calcutta Minerals Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.; and Civil Appeal No.2549 of 2006 in the matter of Collector, Jalpaiguri and another vs. Darjeeling Dooars Plantations (Tea) Ltd. and another, by which judgment, the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was set aside and Notification dated 01.06.1994 was upheld. It was held that the State Government was entitled to claim Salami. 77. In the facts of the present case, we have already noticed Clause 16(a) of the original Lease Deed, which provided that at the time of renewal of the lease, the State is entitled to renew the lease on such terms and conditions as it may determined. For ready reference, Clause 16A is extracted below: (16) (a) That the Lessee/ Lessees shall be entitled to the renewal of this lease for a further period of thirty years and to successive renewals, for, similar, periods, subject to the rules and the terms and, conditions of this lease and to such other terms and conditions as the State Government may from time to time consider it necessary to impose and include in such renewed lease or leases and subject to further to such rent as may then be fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing of Lease Deed, it was open for the State of West Bengal to incorporate such conditions as may deemed fit, including condition of payment of Salami for renewal of the Lease Deed, but in the renewed Lease Deed, no such payment of Salami has been computed or provided for and only amount, which was mentioned in the Lease Deed is towards rent of Rs.13,180/-, as noted above. When the Lease Deed, which was executed on 15.11.1995 was in accordance with the law and cannot be held to be void on the ground non-payment of Salami. Issuing a subsequent letter on 04.08.2016, where demand of Salami has been made, shall not make the execution of the Lease Deed void or inoperative. At best, the State could have asked the lessee of Kilcott Tea Garden to enter into Supplementary Lease Deed, providing for payment of Salami, or take any action as permissible in accordance with law with regard to renewed Lease Deed. Admittedly, the State has not brought any order on the record, cancelling the renewed Lease Deed dated 15.11.1995. When the Lease Deed, which was executed and registered and is not cancelled, we fail to see, how the Lease Deed can be declared void and inoperative. Insofar as payment of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and was carrying out the operations. The possession of Hantapara and Garganda Tea Estates was handed over to Merico on 29.01.2018, in pursuance of Agreement executed between the Corporate Debtor and the Merico. 84. We have already noticed the Notification issued by the Central Government on 28.01.2016 for taking over control of the management of Tea Gardens by the Tea Board. The Notification was challenged by the Corporate Debtor before the Calcutta High Court by filing a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by Learned Single Judge, against which an Appeal was filed and Division Bench vide order dated 20.09.2016 passed an interim order with object to enable the Gardens to run. The Corporate Debtor was asked to take possession and run the Tea Gardens as a Caretaker. The Corporate Debtor, who could not itself run the Tea Gardens, entered into an Agreement with Merico with respect to Hantapara and Garganda Tea Estates on 29.01.2018 for five years. With respect to Tulsipara, an Agreement was entered on 20.07.2018 and for Dumchipara Tea Estate, an Agreement was entered on 19.08.2019. 85. Before the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.1256/KB/2020, the case of the RP was that the Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gardens, if it was handed over to him on a platter today. While making the above observation in paragraph 5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19, the Application came to be rejected. Paragraphs 5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 are as follows: 5.16. Be that as it may, when it is the admitted case of the RP that the corporate debtor's financials are not too good and there is nothing on record to indicate that the financials of the corporate debtor have suddenly been on the upswing - we do not see how the RP would be in a position to run the four tea gardens. The RP is not in any position to run the four tea gardens if it were handed over to him on a platter today. 5.17. A procrustean approach to the CIRP is to be eschewed in favour of a more level-headed one keeping in view natural variation and individuality of the CIRP itself. It has to take into account local circumstances and legitimate expectations. In the present case, until the lease is renewed in favour of Duncans, one cannot see how the RP can even stake a claim for taking over. Merico's occupation of the tea gardens is well within the knowledge of the eventual owner the State of West Bengal, as borne out by the letters forming part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executing a registered renewed Lease Deed dated 08.11.1996. Thus, the order dated 28.05.2201 deserve to be partly set aside, insofar as it related to Tea Garden Garganda. It is held that RP was entitled to take custody and possession of Tea Garden Garganda, whose lease having been renewed on 08.11.1996 and the Corporate Debtor has subsisting right in the Lease Deed till 08.09.2026. 89. In result, the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.672 of 2021 deserves to be partly allowed to the above extent. Question No.6 90. The Adjudicating Authority while rejecting the other Application filed by the RP has relied on its order dated 28.05.2021 passed in IA No.1256/KB/2020 and held that since it has considered similar issues in IA 1256 of 2020, the Application filed by RP for taking custody and control of the other Tea Gardens deserved to be rejected. We may refer to the order of the Adjudicating Authority passed dated 21.04.2022, in IA No.1111/KB/2021, which Application was filed by the RP for taking possession of two Tea Gardens, namely Kilcott and Nagaisuree Tea Estates. With regard to Kilcott Tea Estate, it was the case of the RP that for Kilcott Tea Estate the lease was executed on 22.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of hearing it was noticed that, in this application also, the question of law is similar to the one in I.A.(IB) No. 1256/KB/2020 and I.A.(IB) No. 1111/KB/2021. These two applications have already been decided after hearing exhaustive arguments of the learned Senior Counsel. Since the arguments are common and issue involved is conclusively covered by the order passed by this Bench earlier, there is no need to once again give more and more time for hearing the same arguments on behalf of the Resolution Professional and the the Respondent No. 1. 94. In IA No.109/KB/2022, which was filed by the RP for taking possession of Rungli Rungliot Tea Garden, which Application also came to be rejected, relying on the order passed in IA No.1256/KB/2020. In paragraph 5 of the order dated 18.07.2022 passed in IA No.109/KB/2022, following has been observed: 5. Similar applications have been filed by the Resolution Professional for possession of other Tea Gardens. This Adjudicating Authority in I.A. (IB) No. 1256/KB/2018 has given its view and had observed that the only concern is that the Corporate Debtor is in financial stress and whether the Resolution Professional would be able to run th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable. While passing the subsequent orders, rejecting the IAs filed by the RP, the Adjudicating Authority was required to consider the Applications. In any view of the matter, we have already considered and held above that the leasehold rights of the Corporate Debtor, subsisting in three Tea Gardens namely Garganda, Kilcott and Bagarcote. Hence, the Applications filed by the RP, insofar as above three Tea Gardens, deserve to be allowed. Question No.7 97. One of the submissions, which has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that possession taken by the Sammelan and Merico, subsequent to the order dated 05.03.2020, violates Section 14 of the Code. 98. From the pleadings of State of West Bengal in its counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 and 7 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.593 of 2022, the State itself has given the dates when possession was handed over to Merico or Sammelan of different Tea Gardens. The possession of Birpara Tea Estate was taken by Merico with effect from 16.12.2021, which is pleaded by the State in paragraph 11(y), which is as follows: 11(y) That in accordance with the terms agreed upon in the meeting on 12th Feb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary process of renovations and repair of the factory, plants and machinery, restoration of Electricity and water connections, rejuvenation of the Tea Garden as a whole and paid dues and is also regularly paying the wages and due entitlements of the workers, without a single retrenchment or default. 101. Further, possession of Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates were taken by the Sammelan with effect from 03.11.2021, which is pleaded in paragraph 11(ii), which is as follows: 11(ii) That it is most humbly submitted that in compliance of the terms so agreed, Sammelan Tea took over and reopened both the Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates with effect from 3rd November, 2021 in the presence of high officials of the Govt. of West Bengal. Since taking over, Sammelan Tea has undertaken all necessary remedial steps, including payment of dues and regular timely payments of all wages and entitlements of the workers to their satisfactions, timely deposits of Statutory payments, replacements of junk equipment, plants and machineries, complete renovations of the buildings. The Tea Estates which were converted into jungles has been restored and rejuvenated. 102. Thus, possession of the above Tea Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to (a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangement as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority; (b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. (4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process: Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be. 103. Section 14 (1) (d) prohibit recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor. 104. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by Section 31(3) of the Code, to the date of admission of an insolvency petition up to the date that the adjudicating authority either allows a resolution plan to come into effect or states that the corporate debtor must go into the liquidation. For this temporary period, at least, all the things referred to under Section 14 must be strictly observed so that the corporate debtor may finally be put back on its feet albeit with a new management. 105. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. Sasntanu T. Ray Resolution Professional and Anr. (2022) SCC OnLine NCLAT 105. In the above case also, this Tribunal had occasion to consider Section 14. The facts of the case have been noticed in paragraph-1 of the judgment, which are as follows: 1. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court No. I in M.A No. 3691 of 2019. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this Appeal are:- The Appellant- Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation allotted Plot No. B-11 to the Corporate Debtor on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the corporate insolvency resolution process in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; d. Till the disposal of this MA, to pass an order directing and injuncting the Respondent from taking possession of the said leasehold land till such time this MA is disposed of. e. For interim and ad interim orders in terms of prayers (1) to (3) above. 106. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the prayer (a) in the Application, aggrieved by which order, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has filed the Appeal. Question of Section 14, came for consideration in the above context. This Tribunal noticed the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rajendra K. Bhutta (supra) and in paragraph 8, two questions were noticed, which arise for consideration. Paragraph 8 of the judgment is as follows: 8. From the submissions of the Counsel for the parties, following questions arise for consideration in this Appeal are:- (i) Whether after initiation of CIRP and enforcement of Moratorium under Section 14, the Appellant could have cancelled the lease which was earlier granted in favour of the Corporate Debtor and take possession of the plot in question during CIRP? (ii) Whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant not to take any coercive action till the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan is heard by the Adjudicating Authority. The above direction was also to protect the status quo which was existing on the date of initiation of CIRP. We, however, make it clear that as soon as the CIRP is over, the Appellant shall have all powers to take appropriate action. 108. When we look into the facts of the present case, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor has subsisting rights in three Tea Gardens, i.e., Garganda, Kilcott and Bagracote-I as noticed above. Although, possession of Garganda was taken prior to enforcement of moratorium, but possession of Kilcott and Bagaracote was taken respectively on 03.11.2021 and 01.07.2021 as noticed above. The Corporate Debtor has subsisting rights in the above leases of Bagaracote and Kilcott, which were renewed. Hence, after the enforcement of the moratorium on 05.03.2020, the possession of Tea Estates of the Kilcott and Bagaracote could not have been taken. It is true that the State was the owner of Tea Estates and due to suffering of labour, the Department of Labour, Govt. of West Bengal and Labour Commissioner held various meetings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.672 of 2021 deserved to be partly allowed and set aside the order passed by Adjudicating Authority dated 28.05.2021 in IA No.1256/KB/2020, insofar as Tea Garden Garganda is concerned. 114. Similarly, the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.592 of 2022 deserve to be partly allowed by setting aside order dated 21.04.2022 in IA No.1111/KB/2021. Accordingly, we partly set aside order dated 21.04.2021 in IA No.1111/KB/2021 insofar as Tea Garden Kilcott is concerned. 115. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.754 of 2022 is also deserve to be partly allowed by setting aside order passed by Adjudicating Authority in IA No.665/KB/2021 insofar as Bagracote Div.I Tea Garden is concerned. 116. We may also notice the two Intervention Applications filed in these Appeals one by State Bank of India being IA No.3712 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.593 of 2022, where State Bank of India has pleaded that Adjudicating Authority erred in passing the impugned order in IA No.1111/KB/2021. It was further pleaded by the State Bank of India that Nagaisuree and Kilcott Tea Estates along with leasehold rights, were the Tea Estates, which were mortgaged to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng manner: I. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 672 of 2021 is partly allowed. The order dated 28.05.2021 passed in IA No.1256/KB/2020 is partly allowed, insofar as Garganda Tea Garden is concerned. The order of the Adjudicating Authority with respect to other Tea Gardens, i.e., Hantapara, Tulsipara and Dumchipara is affirmed. II. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.593 of 2022 is partly allowed. Order dated 21.04.2022 in IA No.1111/KB/2021 set aside, insofar it relates to Tea Garden Kilcott. Rest of the order is affirmed. III. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.754 of 2022 is partly allowed. Order dated 09.05.2022 passed in IA No.665/KB/2021, insofar as it relates to Bagracote Div.I is set aside. Rest of the order is affirmed. IV. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.628 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.907 of 2022 are dismissed. V. It is held that Tea Gardens of Garganda, Kilcott and Bagracote are assets of the Corporate Debtor, to which the RP was entitled to be handed over the possession. However, in sequence of the events and facts that these three Tea Gardens having been run by Merico and Sammelan and in the Tea Gardens, thousands of workers are working, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
