TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Recently, I had the privilege to work in an interesting case related to insolvency proceedings. The best and, must I say, the worst thing about the cases in the NCLT is that they move too fast and too many applications are filed at once, but a similar initiative is not taken when it comes to publication especially in cases where the Corporate Debtor (CD) is a builder or developer of a residential or commercial estate.
So, in the case Manish Mittal v. MKMG Jewel Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Sharad Jain v. Durga Das Agrawal, the Resolution Professional (RP) was under the illusion that the entire floor of a subject property belonged to the CD, whereas on the same floor, the CD had already sold the properties to third parties before the start of the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Now, the RP made the publication, but unfortunately none of the interested parties actually got any notice. In fact, they only came to know about the CIRP when the police came to take possession of the property. The CD had cleverly included the entire floor, including the roof rights.
Background of the Insolvency Proceedings
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against MKMG Jewel Developers Pvt. Ltd. was initiated based on an application filed under Section 7 of the IBC by Ambrane India Pvt. Ltd. The application was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, on 12 January 2022, and Durga Das Agrawal was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), later confirmed as the Resolution Professional (RP).
As part of the CIRP, the RP sought possession of a commercial building located at Property No. 13/3, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, covering the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors along with terrace rights. The RP filed IA No. 3801/ND/2023 before the NCLT seeking directions against Bliss Equity Pvt. Ltd. and others to hand over possession of the property and relevant documents. This application was allowed by the NCLT on 10 December 2024.
Bliss Equity Pvt. Ltd. challenged the order by filing Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 220 of 2025 before the NCLAT. However, the appeal was dismissed on 5 March 2025, and the Supreme Court also upheld the NCLAT’s decision on 28 April 2025.
Subsequently, the RP filed IA No. 270/ND/2025, seeking police assistance to take physical possession of the property. This application was allowed by the NCLT on 22 May 2025.
It was only at this stage that third-party purchasers, including Manish Mittal and Sharad Jain, became aware of the proceedings. Both appellants claimed to have purchased separate units on the disputed floors from the corporate debtor prior to the commencement of CIRP. They filed applications opposing the RP’s possession attempt, asserting their ownership through registered sale deeds executed well before the 12 January 2022 moratorium.
The appellants argued that despite the RP making public announcements under the IBC, no direct notice was ever issued to them, and that they only became aware of the insolvency process when police appeared to take control of the property.
Appeals before the NCLAT
Manish Mittal filed CA (AT) (Ins) No. 883 of 2025
Sharad Jain filed CA (AT) (Ins) No. 868 of 2025
In both appeals, the common grievance was that the properties now sought to be taken over by the RP were already alienated by the CD before the start of CIRP, and as such, did not form part of the assets of the corporate debtor. The appellants also emphasized that the resolution plan and information memorandum failed to account for these registered sales.
The matter was first heard on 11 June 2025 in the second appeal (Sharad Jain), where the NCLAT noted the RP’s willingness to verify the original title documents before proceeding further. The first appeal (Manish Mittal) was heard on 25 June 2025, and both appeals were listed for final hearing on 1 July 2025.
Final Order of the NCLAT – 1 July 2025
The NCLAT passed a consolidated order disposing of both appeals with the following key directions:
- The appellants were directed to approach the RP within 15 days from the date of the order and submit their original title deeds and documents.
- The RP was directed to verify the ownership claims and determine whether the properties indeed belonged to the appellants or were part of the assets of the CD.
- Until such verification is completed, the RP was restrained from taking possession of the properties claimed by the appellants, either personally or through police.
- If the RP concludes that the properties do not belong to the appellants, the appellants were given the liberty to take appropriate legal remedies as available in law.