Tribunal Rules in Favor of RP in Factory Premises Dispute

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Resolution Professional (RP) in a case involving disputes over possession of factory premises and the corporate office. It held that the moratorium order under Section 14 of the IBC supersedes actions like the Municipal Corporation sealing the corporate office. The Ex-Director and Business Head were directed to cooperate with the RP, with non-compliance being considered contempt of court. The judgment emphasized compliance with court orders and IBC provisions to facilitate the effective resolution of the Corporate Debtor's insolvency proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute over the possession of the factory premises and corporate office.
2. Municipal Corporation sealing the corporate office during the moratorium period.
3. Non-cooperation of the Ex-Director and Business Head with the Resolution Professional.
4. Legal consequences of non-compliance with court orders.

Issue 1: Dispute over the possession of the factory premises and corporate office:
The Resolution Professional (RP) faced challenges in taking control of the factory premises and corporate office. The Ex-Director's son claimed the property belonged to him, obstructed RP's team, and refused to provide necessary documents. The police were involved, but confusion persisted over the exact location of the premises. A surveyor's verification was suggested to resolve the issue.

Issue 2: Municipal Corporation sealing the corporate office during the moratorium period:
Despite the moratorium order under Section 14 of the IBC, the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad sealed the Corporate Office of the Debtor for non-payment of municipal taxes. The Tribunal held that the moratorium order overrides such actions, directing the Municipal Corporation to immediately unseal the property and hand it over to the RP.

Issue 3: Non-cooperation of the Ex-Director and Business Head with the Resolution Professional:
The Ex-Director and his son/Business Head were directed to file an affidavit regarding their non-cooperation with the RP. Failure to comply was deemed contempt of court. The Tribunal highlighted Section 70 of the IBC, emphasizing the legal consequences, including imprisonment and fines, for non-compliance with RP's directions.

Issue 4: Legal consequences of non-compliance with court orders:
The Tribunal gave a two-day deadline for the Ex-Directors to hand over possession of the property and documents to the RP. Failure to comply would result in further legal action. The RP was instructed to submit a status report, and the Ex-Directors were required to appear in court personally to ensure compliance with the court's directives based on the NCLAT's directions to maintain the company as a going concern.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issues surrounding the possession of the factory premises and corporate office, the Municipal Corporation's actions during the moratorium period, the non-cooperation of the Ex-Director and Business Head, and the legal repercussions of non-compliance with court orders. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adherence to the IBC provisions and court directives to ensure the effective resolution of the Corporate Debtor's insolvency proceedings.

---