Leasehold transfer and insolvency avoidance: direct allotment upheld where original transferee failed statutory and contractual requirements.

A corporate debtor's claim to leasehold rights failed where it had not secured execution and registration of the lease deed within the stipulated period and had not cleared dues required by the lessor. On that basis, the lessor could lawfully transfer the leasehold rights directly to another allottee after payment of dues and execution of a revised lease deed. The transfer was also not treated as preferential, fraudulent or undervalued under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because the new allottee's rights arose independently from the lessor, with no material showing collusion, intent to defraud creditors, or use of the corporate debtor's assets to confer an avoidable benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate debtor had any subsisting leasehold right in the subject land so as to invalidate the direct transfer of leasehold rights by the lessor to the respondent. (ii) Whether the transfer in favour of the respondent could be characterised as a preferential, fraudulent or undervalued transaction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate debtor had any subsisting leasehold right in the subject land so as to invalidate the direct transfer of leasehold rights by the lessor to the respondent.

Analysis: The sale deed in favour of the corporate debtor required transfer of the lease within a stipulated period and registration of the lease deed, failing which the lessor could cancel the arrangement and re-allot the land. The corporate debtor did not secure execution of the lease deed for a long period and did not clear the outstanding dues demanded by the lessor. In view of the contractual stipulation, the applicable land management rules, and the statutory requirement that a lease of immovable property for a term exceeding one year must be by registered instrument, the corporate debtor's claim to subsisting leasehold rights could not be sustained. The respondent acquired leasehold rights directly from the lessor after payment of dues and execution of the revised lease deed.

Conclusion: The corporate debtor had no enforceable subsisting leasehold right in the subject land, and the respondent validly acquired the leasehold rights directly from the lessor.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer in favour of the respondent could be characterised as a preferential, fraudulent or undervalued transaction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The respondent's acquisition of the leasehold rights was independent of the corporate debtor's failed transaction and was supported by direct payment to the lessor and execution of the revised lease deed. The transaction concerning the tin shed was separate from the leasehold transfer. No material was shown to establish collusion, intent to defraud creditors, or any beneficial transfer caused through the corporate debtor's assets in a manner attracting the avoidance provisions. Mere suspicion or a possible chain of transactions was insufficient to invoke the avoidance provisions.

Conclusion: The transfer did not amount to a preferential, fraudulent or undervalued transaction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the respondent's leasehold rights were independently and lawfully obtained, and the impugned order called for no interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original transferee fails to complete the contractual and statutory requirements for a leasehold transfer, the lessor may lawfully transfer the property directly to another allottee, and such direct transfer will not be avoided absent material showing preference, fraud, or undervaluation under the insolvency law.

---