AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing for Resolution Professional.
This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, challenging the order dated 19/02/2026, passed in I.A 1290/2025 and I.A. 2626/2024.
The aforesaid I.As were filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority praying for exclusion of an asset referred to Chhatarpur property.
The Applicant’s case was that said property, situated in Delhi, does not belong to Corporate Debtor and Resolution Professional has illegally taken symbolic possession of the same
Various prayers were made in both the Applications. Adjudicating Authority heard the Parties and by the impugned order, has rejected both Applications, aggrieved by which order these Appeals have been filed.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, challenging the order submitting that in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate debtor, the assets were not shown and Jamabandi and all revenue records was also in the name of the Appellant. It is further submitted that the asset, with regard to which CD claims their title, is already under cloud, pending for adjudication before the Delhi High Court.
Ld. Counsel for RP submitted that Adjudicating Authority, to protect the interest of the Appellant, has already passed appropriate directions in Paragraph 17 and the Resolution Plan itself contain a clause that Resolution Applicant shall pursue the litigation on behalf of the corporate debtor and however, shall abide by the result of the litigation.
We have heard the Counsels for the Parties and perused the record.
In Paragraph 17 of the judgement, Adjudicating Authority directed as follows :
“17.Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the disputes raised by the Applicant, insofar as they relate to the ownership of the disputed Chhatarpur property which is already sub judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, cannot be adjudicated by this Adjudicating Authority in exercise of jurisdiction under the Code and require determination before the appropriate civil forum. The Applicant, in the present Application, has not sought any adjudication on the validity of the sale deed as such, but has confined the relief to a direction for exclusion of the said property from the scope and ambit of the Resolution Plan. It is further noted that upon approval of the Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, the management and control of the Corporate Debtor shall vest in the Successful Resolution Applicant, who has undertaken to pursue and continue the pending litigation concerning the said disputed property and to abide by its ultimate outcome. The Resolution Plan, duly approved by the CoC under Section 30(5) and presently pending approval before this Adjudicating Authority in IA(PLAN) 10 of 2025, expressly records the pendency of CS (OS) No. 7948 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and provides that the said proceedings shall be pursued by the Resolution Applicant after approval of the Plan. In such view of the matter, this Adjudicating Authority cannot grant the relief of exclusion as sought, particularly when the Resolution Plan itself duly records the pendency of the civil litigation and the Successful Resolution Applicant has undertaken to pursue the same and abide by its final outcome, thereby safeguarding the Applicant’s interest and leaving the rights of the parties to be determined by the competent civil court.”
When the litigation, with respect to immovable property situated in Delhi, is pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court, the said issues cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority, and we are of the view that rights of the Appellant are amply protected by observations and findings as Paragraph 17 of the order. Hence we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the Application, which however as stated in Paragraph 17, shall be subject to ultimate decision in the pending litigation to which SRA has undertaken to be bound by.
Ld. Counsel for Resolution Professional submitted that physical possession is with the RP. He further submitted that correct suit No. is 1948 of 2015 pending in Delhi High Court.
With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.
Appeal dismissed.