AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
22.01.2026: I.A. No. 213 of 2026
Sufficient cause has been shown to condone one day delay in filing the appeal. Delay is condoned. I.A. No. 213 is disposed of.
CA (AT)(Ins) No. 59 of 2026
Heard counsel for the Appellant as well as counsel for the Liquidator.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.11.2025 in IA (IBC) No.4183/MB/2025 which IA was filed praying for relief as quoted in paragraph- 2 of the order which is as follows:-
“2.This is an Application filed by Mr. Vikram Bhatnagar under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended ("Code"), together with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking following reliefs :-
a. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Liquidator (Respondent No. 1) to cancel the sale certificate dated 26 December 2022, in as much as it purports to sell the terrace above the Second Floor of the House No. F-3/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, to the Respondents No. 2 and 3;
b. pending hearing and disposal of this application, direct the Respondents not to create any third-party rights on the Second Floor and the Terrace above the Second Floor of the House No. F-3/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi;
c. pending hearing and disposal of this application, direct the Respondents, to not act or rely on the sale certificate dated 26 December 2022 for any purpose whatsoever; and
d. for such other appropriate orders, reliefs and directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper having regard to these facts.”
Shri Gaurav Mitra, Counsel for the appellant submits that in the description of the immovable property only word use were “exclusive use of Terrace above Second Floor”. However, in the sale certificate which has been issued by the Liquidator the expression used is “exclusive ownership use of Terrace above Second Floor”. It is submitted that only exclusive use of Terrace was conceded as the detail of the property no right more than that could have been given by the Liquidator. Ld. counsel for the Liquidator submitted that the Adjudicating Authority itself has clarified in paragraph-7 of the order to the following effect:-
“7.It is clear from the above that the Liquidator had himself admitted only exclusive use of terrace above Second Floor and not the ownership of terrace above Second Floor as stated in the sale certificate.”
Counsel for the Liquidator does not dispute that what could have been transferred by the Liquidator was only exclusive use of Terrace. The sale certificate cannot be read to mean that any ownership right of the Terrace above second floor has been given and the certificate has to be read as “only exclusive use of Terrace” which has been clarified in paragraph-7 of the impugned order. We do not find any reason to interfere in the appeal or to pass any further order.
Subject to clarification as above, appeal is dismissed.