1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal Upholds I&B Code in Insolvency Appeal, Clarifies Professional Duties</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the supremacy of the I&B Code in determining possession rights during insolvency proceedings. The ... Preferential rights of secured creditors - Handing over the possession of the mortgaged property - restraint on βInterim Resolution Professionalβ from demanding the custody of the property - loan became bad and declared Non-performing asset - HELD THAT:- Section 18 of the βI&B Codeβ deals with βDuties of Interim Resolution Professionalβ. As per which, it is the duty of the βInterim Resolution Professionalβ to take over the control and custody of any assets over which the βCorporate Debtorβ has βownership rightsβ as recorded in the balance sheet of the βCorporate Debtorβ which includes the assets that may or may not be in possession of the βCorporate Debtorβ as apparent from clause (f) (ii) of Section 18 - from Section 18, it is clear that the term βassetsβ do not include the assets owned by a third party in possession of the βCorporate Debtorβ. It is not the case of the Appellant that the title of the assets has already been transferred or they have sold the assets in terms of Section 13(4) of the βSARFAESI Act, 2002β. It is also not the case of the Appellant that the assets owned by a third party is in possession of the βCorporate Debtorβ in terms of Section 18, as it is the duty of the βInterim Resolution Professionalβ to take control and custody of any asset over which the βCorporate Debtorβ has βownership rightsβ as recorded in the balance sheet of the βCorporate Debtorβ. Even if it is not in possession of the βCorporate Debtorβ, a person who is in possession of the same, including the βDena Bankβ or βEncore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.β is bound to hand over the same to the βResolution Professionalβ, when title still vests with βCorporate Debtorβ. βSARFAESI Act, 2002β being an existing law, Section 238 of the βI&B Codeβ will prevail over any of the provisions of the βSARFAESI Act, 2002β if it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the βI&B Codeβ. Thus, Section 18 of the βI&B Codeβ will prevail over Section 13(4) of the βSARFAESI Act, 2002β and the βDena Bankβ cannot retain the possession of the property in question of which the βCorporate Debtorβ is the owner - appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Appellant appealing against the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing possession handover.2. Interpretation of the duties of the Interim Resolution Professional under the I&B Code.3. Conflict between the I&B Code and SARFAESI Act regarding possession rights.Issue 1:The appeal was filed against an order directing Dena Bank to hand over possession of mortgaged properties in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Bank had taken physical possession under the SARFAESI Act before the moratorium commenced, claiming the Resolution Professional was pressuring to return possession.Issue 2:The duties of the Interim Resolution Professional under Section 18 of the I&B Code were central. The Professional must take control of assets over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership rights, even if not in their possession. The Bank argued ownership vested in them due to the bad loan status, while the Professional contended the Debtor remained the owner as per the I&B Code.Issue 3:The Tribunal analyzed the conflict between the I&B Code and the SARFAESI Act. Section 238 of the I&B Code overrides inconsistent provisions of other laws. It held that Section 18 of the I&B Code prevails over Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, determining that the Bank could not retain possession of the property as the Corporate Debtor was the owner.The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the supremacy of the I&B Code in determining possession rights during insolvency proceedings. The judgment clarified the duties of the Interim Resolution Professional and resolved the conflict between the I&B Code and the SARFAESI Act regarding possession rights, establishing the ownership rights of the Corporate Debtor during insolvency proceedings.