Insency jurisdiction cannot resolve pre-existing title disputes over immovable property or compel transfer without a registered conveyance.

An agreement to sell immovable property does not by itself create any interest or charge, and title passes only on execution of a registered conveyance. Where the property remained in the appellant's name and the dispute concerned alleged breach of that pre-CIRP agreement, the NCLT could not use insolvency jurisdiction or Section 60(5) of the Code to adjudicate the title dispute or compel transfer of property not owned by the corporate debtor. Approval of a resolution plan could not enlarge jurisdiction to direct transfer of a third party's asset. The direction requiring transfer of the Igatpuri unit was therefore beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority, in proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, could direct transfer of the Igatpuri unit in favour of the corporate debtor or its nominee when the dispute arose from an earlier agreement to sell and the appellant retained title to the property.

Analysis: The dispute concerned an agreement to sell executed long before commencement of CIRP. The property had not been conveyed by a registered sale deed, and the title continued to vest in the appellant. The Court held that an agreement to sell does not by itself create any interest in or charge on immovable property, and that ownership passes only upon execution of a conveyance. It further held that the relevant dispute regarding alleged breach of the agreement and entitlement to transfer of the property was a pre-existing contractual/title dispute, which lay outside the jurisdiction of the NCLT in exercise of its insolvency jurisdiction. The residuary power under Section 60(5) of the Code could not be used to adjudicate such a dispute or to revive and enforce a property transfer claim that was not part of the corporate debtor's owned assets. The approval of the resolution plan could not enlarge the tribunal's jurisdiction to compel transfer of property belonging to a third party.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the appellant to transfer the Igatpuri unit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal exercising insolvency jurisdiction cannot decide a pre-existing contractual or title dispute over immovable property not owned by the corporate debtor, and an agreement to sell does not transfer title in the absence of a registered conveyance.

---