Tribunal rules possession doesn't confer ownership in liquidation, Liquidator advised legal redress.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's possession claim based on a letter lacking a formal agreement, stating possession does not confer ownership rights in liquidation. It upheld the direction preventing disturbance of the Liquidator's possession but deemed quashing the Civil Suit improper, advising the Liquidator to seek redressal through legal channels. The Liquidator's claim for rent or mesne profits was rejected, clarifying it does not establish property rights. The Tribunal modified the arrest directive, instructing the Police to take lawful action and partly allowing the Appeal by setting aside the Civil Suit quashing, allowing the Liquidator to seek relief through appropriate courts.

---

---

Issues:
1. Possession claim based on a letter dated 17th August, 2002.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court in insolvency proceedings.
3. Claim of rent or mesne profits by the Liquidator.
4. Arrest direction against the Appellant.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant claimed possession of the property based on a letter dated 17th August, 2002, which was issued by a Director of the Corporate Debtor. The letter indicated possession for the management of a school, but lacked a formal agreement. The Tribunal observed that mere possession does not confer ownership or tenancy rights, especially in a liquidation scenario. The Appellant failed to establish legal status or animus to hold the property as an owner, tenant, or licensee, rendering the possession claim insufficient.

2. The Tribunal upheld the direction prohibiting the Appellant from disturbing the Liquidator's possession of the property. However, it deemed the Adjudicating Authority's decision to quash a Civil Suit as improper. Referring to Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Tribunal clarified that while legal proceedings against the corporate debtor are restricted post-liquidation, the Liquidator should seek redressal through the appropriate legal channels rather than the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Regarding the Liquidator's claim for rent or mesne profits, the Tribunal clarified that such a claim does not establish a lessor-lessee relationship or confer property rights. The Liquidator's demand for rent "for use of the Wada property" did not create a legal entitlement for the Appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that mere words in a claim cannot create a title or ownership right.

4. The Tribunal addressed the directive for the Appellant's arrest, noting allegations of threats and obstruction against the Liquidator. Instead of enforcing immediate arrest, the Tribunal instructed the Police to take appropriate legal action based on the circumstances. The Tribunal modified the arrest direction to ensure compliance with the law while maintaining the rest of the Impugned Order. The Appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the quashing of the Civil Suit and granting the Liquidator the option to pursue appropriate relief through the Civil Court or District Court.

---