9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for initiation of the CIRP proceedings in view of financial stress. In these circumstances, sale of the said property immediately after reserving of the judgment on 06.02.2023, itself is an avert act, and actions of the Appellant with regard to the aforesaid transaction which is subject matter of the Civil Suit, which has been instituted at his behest together with chronological sequence of transactions in the scheduled land during the pendency of CIRP proceedings shows that the sale was not bonafide and apart from this, since the appellant himself has already questioned the rights of the respondent in a regular Civil Suit, and his rights over the property are yet to be determined by the competent Civil Court, which he himself has invoked at this stage the pendency of the Civil Suit cannot be taken as a reason for interference in the CIRP proceedings. Further, the resolution plan as filed through IA No. 02/2024 in its Clause 5, describes the assets of the Corporate Debtor, which also refers to the ensuing litigation being Suit O.S. No. 16/2024. The apprehension expressed on the basis of the written submissions is without basis, as the Resolution Plan since it does not in any ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 is the Resolution Professional and Respondent No. 2 is the Corporate Debtor (CD). A proceeding under Section 7 was initiated against the Corporate Debtor and as a consequence thereto, the Corporate Debtor was admitted to the CIRP proceedings by an order of 28.03.2023 and Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Resolution Professional. During the CIRP proceedings, the Appellant has filed two Interlocutory Applications being IA No. 167/2024 and IA No. 417/2024. In IA No. 167/2024, the Appellant has sought for the following reliefs: a) Direct the Resolution Professional/Respondent No. 1 to explicitly inform all prospective Resolution Applicants and the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor that the Schedule Property belonging to the Appellant cannot be dealt with by their Resolution Plans; b) Direct the Resolution Professional/Respondent No. 1 to submit for the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority s approval, only those resolution plans that do not in any way deal with the Appellant s Schedule Property; and c) Withhold approval to any Resolution Plan or such part thereof that deal with the Schedule Property of the Appellant. 3. By filing the application in IA No. 167/2024, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24.02.2023 vide a registered Sale Deed. v. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP on 28.03.2023. vi. The Appellant filed a Civil Suit being O.S. No. 16/2024, seeking grant of a decree of Permanent Injunction on 16.01.2024. 6. On the initiation of the Civil Suit, the Appellant has portrayed himself as to be a third party to CIRP proceedings, qua the scheduled property, alleged to have purchased the property which was not encumbered in any manner whatsoever, he has claimed to have purchased the same by virtue of the registered Sale Deed of 24.02.2023, with the right protected in his favour, that the property which was thus conveyed by the aforesaid Sale Deed said to have been described in the map which was forming part of the sale deed. 7. When the suit was preferred, there was an application preferred by the applicants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the trial court had granted a Temporary Injunction on 17.01.2024. 8. The Resolution Professional has appeared and had filed an application on 08.02.2024, contending thereof that the Civil Suit will not be maintainable as it stood instituted on 16.01.2024 for the reason being that: 1) It was barred by the provisions contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that owing to the provisions contended under Section 18 of the I B Code, 2016 since the property was not the part of the property of the Corporate Debtor, it could not have been included as an asset in the assets of the Corporate Debtor in view of the provisions contained under Section 18. The aforesaid Section 18 is being attempted to be substantiated by the reply submitted by the Resolution Professional in the opposition to the application in IA No. 167/2024, wherein the Resolution Professional has submitted that as far as the property is concerned, since the appellant is third party and there already happens to be a pending Civil Suit, coupled with the fact that the present appellant who contends to have purchased his rights over the party by the sale deed on 24.02.2023, had not raised any claim nor even otherwise they will have no right over the property as such. The Appellant submitted that the plea taken in Para - 21 to the reply, was opposed by filing the reply as contained in the affidavit filed thereto to the effect that the sale made in favour of the Appellant of the property would fall to be a part of the property of the Corporate Deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and it had been under the ownership of one Mr. Basavraj Ningappa Arekeri, who happens to be the suspended director and shareholder of the Corporate debtor, if this be so the property would fall to be part and parcel of the assets of the Corporate Debtor because as against the mortgage of the said property, the loan facilities were extended. The acquisition of alleged title made by the Appellant from Mr. Chidanand Sangappa Patil on 24.02.2023 in fact is bad in law because the erstwhile owner, the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor, Mr. Basavraj Ningappa Arekeri, had sold the property which was and is in possession of the Corporate Debtor for industrial purposes, to the predecessor- seller of the Appellant by a Sale Deed on 23.01.2023 at a time when Section 7 application against the Corporate Debtor was under active consideration and this fact was very well known to the Suspended Director that alienation of Corporate Debtor s assets should not be done in normal course. A specific case has been made that the property in question is being used for the industrial purposes of the Corporate Debtor, which is a fact not denied by the appellants and it was falling within the premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
