Court upholds property protection for buyers, clarifies jurisdiction over pre-IBC petitions. Interim relief granted.

The Court emphasized the preservation and protection of properties for which consideration money was paid in 2015. It clarified the jurisdiction of the Company Court over winding-up petitions filed pre-Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, allowing the Official Liquidator to retain symbolic possession. With no Resolution Plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, potential impact on home buyers was noted. The Court granted interim protection to the applicant until December 21, 2020, considering the urgency of the matter and the risk of the flat being treated as a company asset.

---

---

Issues:
1. Preservation and protection of properties for which consideration money was paid in 2015.
2. Jurisdiction of Company Court over winding-up petitions filed before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Retention of symbolic possession by Official Liquidator.
4. Declaratory nature of issues related to title of properties.
5. Completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and absence of Resolution Plan.
6. Potential impact on home buyers in case of liquidation order.
7. Transition of authority from NCLT to Company Court in case of failed Resolution Plan.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the preservation and protection of properties for which the consideration money was paid in 2015. The applicant seeks an order directing the respondents to safeguard the properties. The respondent no.1 is the Official Liquidator, and respondent no.2 is a Resolution Professional in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated against the Company promoting the building. The applicant paid the entire consideration money to the Company (in liquidation) for purchasing a flat.

2. The Court analyzed the Judgment dated 12th December, 2019, which clarified that the Company Court retains jurisdiction over winding-up petitions filed before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came into force. It was held that the Official Liquidator, acting as the Provisional Liquidator, could retain symbolic possession of the assets. The Court emphasized that declaratory issues regarding title to properties should be decided by the Company Court.

3. The Resolution Professional informed the Court that no Resolution Plan had been received for the Corporate Debtor. The CIRP period had ended, and no progress was made towards a Resolution Plan. The Court noted that numerous intending flat owners were in a similar situation, emphasizing the urgency of the matter.

4. The NCLT order highlighted the potential impact on 150 home buyers if a liquidation order was passed. The Court directed that proceedings before the NCLT should continue until the Resolution Plan's acceptance or rejection. If the Plan is rejected, the Company Court should proceed with the winding-up process.

5. Considering the lack of a Resolution Plan and the imminent listing of the RP's application, the Court decided to grant interim protection to the applicant until 21st December, 2020. The Court acknowledged the risk of the flat being treated as an asset of the Company by the NCLT and scheduled further proceedings for 16th December, 2020.

---