Bliss Equity Pvt. Ltd. vs Durga Das Agrawal & Ors.

05.03.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court – IV by which order IA No.3801(ND)/2023 filed by the Resolution Professional against the Appellant has been allowed. By the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has held that the Appellant is a related party and the loan transaction which was claimed by the Appellant was held to be not a secured charge either registered with Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), or with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) and order was issued for handing over the possession of asset and all relevant documents.

Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the mere fact that the in the notary there was no address cannot be ground to discard the transaction. It is further submitted that by virtue of loan transaction the possession of the assets was given to the Appellant and Deed of Usufructuary Mortgage was executed. Hence, the Appellant was entitled to retain the possession of the asset and the Appellant cannot be obliged to hand over the original title deeds.

Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Appellant is a related party and the loan transaction was entered just after the issuance of the notice in Section 7 application and the whole object was to somehow save the property from the CIRP process. It is further submitted that the claim of the Appellant has not been accepted as Secured Financial Creditor.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Adjudicating Authority has retuned a finding that Appellant is a related party, which is established by order dated 05.07.2023 which continues to be valid and binding, as it was never challenged. The submission of the Appellant that the possession of the asset is on the basis of an Usufructuary Mortgage has no merit. It is not disputed that the asset belongs to the Corporate Debtor. When the asset belongs to the Corporate Debtor who has ownership right, there is no error in the direction of the Adjudicating Authority for peacefully handing over the possession of the assets to the IRP and the documents of the property/asset in question to be handed over to the IRP. In so far as documents related to loan transaction, as claimed by the Appellant, the Appellant can keep the original copy of the documents and its attested copy can be given to the IRP, if required. With above observations, this appeal is dismissed.