Tribunal Upholds RP's Possession Rights Under Insolvency Code, Grants Modification

The Tribunal admitted the corporate debtor into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to default in payment. The Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed, and the Committee of Creditors (COC) confirmed his role. The RP sought direction to restrain respondents from disturbing his possession in properties based on an MOU. The Tribunal clarified the RP's possession rights under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, confirming his authority to manage the CIRP. A modification application regarding possession was granted, allowing the RP to continue activities. The Tribunal upheld the RP's possession rights and emphasized protection under the Code, disposing of both applications in favor of the RP and the applicant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Admission of corporate debtor in CIRP due to default in payment of financial debt. Application for direction to restrain respondents from disturbing possession of RP in properties. Dispute over possession of properties based on MOU. Interpretation of rights and possession under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Application for modification of previous order regarding rightful possession of properties.

Admission of Corporate Debtor in CIRP:
The Tribunal admitted the corporate debtor into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to default in paying a financial debt of Rs. 2,21,45,755. The Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed to manage the insolvency proceedings, and his appointment was confirmed by the Committee of Creditors (COC).

Application for Direction to Restrain Respondents:
The RP filed an application seeking direction to restrain Energy Properties Pvt. Ltd. and its directors from disturbing his possession in properties mentioned in a MOU dated 24.01.2008. The respondents, who were the original owners of the properties, started obstructing the RP's possession after the corporate debtor's admission into CIRP.

Dispute Over Possession Based on MOU:
The respondents claimed possession of the properties, alleging that the corporate debtor failed to develop them as per the MOU. However, the Tribunal noted that until the corporate debtor's admission into CIRP, the MOU was not cancelled by the respondents, allowing the corporate debtor to remain in possession for development purposes. The RP, after the admission in CIRP, came into possession of the properties, and the respondents could not disturb this possession.

Interpretation of Rights under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code:
The Tribunal clarified that the corporate debtor held development rights of the properties, which were intangible assets. The RP, in managing the CIRP, had the same development rights and was authorized to proceed with the resolution plan based on those rights. The respondents were prohibited from obstructing the RP's possession and activities related to the CIRP.

Application for Modification of Previous Order:
Another application was filed for modification of a previous order regarding the rightful possession of properties. The Tribunal held that the RP was in legal and rightful possession of the properties, and the applicant's possession and activities in a specific piece of land were not affected by the order. The Tribunal directed the respondents not to obstruct the RP's possession and activities related to the CIRP, and allowed the applicant to continue its business activities on the land based on a leave and license agreement.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of both applications, confirming the RP's possession rights and allowing the applicant to continue its business activities. The orders emphasized the RP's authority in managing the CIRP and the protection of possession rights under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---