Liquidation estate and accidental slip correction upheld where windmill asset dispute remained pending before civil court.

A dispute over windmill assets already pending before the Calcutta High Court was treated as sub judice, with the rights under the letter of intent, sale agreement, alleged withdrawal and refund claim left for that court. In liquidation, the Adjudicating Authority was found to have acted within jurisdiction by keeping the assets outside the liquidation estate, consistent with an earlier order and Section 36(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was also permitted to allow the liquidator to seek impleadment in the civil suit without deciding the suit itself. The corrigendum deleting a portion of the order was upheld as a correction of accidental slip or omission under Rule 154, not an impermissible review.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the title to the windmill assets was sub judice before the Calcutta High Court; (ii) Whether keeping the windmill assets outside the liquidation estate was beyond the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority; (iii) Whether permitting the liquidator to seek impleadment in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2019 exceeded jurisdiction; (iv) Whether the corrigendum dated 23.03.2021 was without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the title to the windmill assets was sub judice before the Calcutta High Court.

Analysis: The dispute over the windmill assets was already before the High Court in a civil suit where the enforceability and consequences of the sale transaction were under examination. The rights flowing from the letter of intent, the agreement, the alleged withdrawal, and the entitlement to refund were all matters that remained to be adjudicated in that suit.

Conclusion: The issue was held to be sub judice before the Calcutta High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether keeping the windmill assets outside the liquidation estate was beyond the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that an earlier order had already permitted the sale transaction to proceed outside CIRP. It further held that the facts brought the matter within the exclusionary framework of Section 36(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that the Adjudicating Authority acted consistently with the earlier order when it permitted the liquidator to keep the assets outside the liquidation estate.

Conclusion: The order keeping the windmill assets outside the liquidation estate was not beyond jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether permitting the liquidator to seek impleadment in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2019 exceeded jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority did not itself decide the civil suit or intrude into the High Court's domain. It merely permitted the liquidator to file an appropriate application to intervene or get impleaded as representative of the corporate debtor, which was within its supervisory competence in the liquidation context.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority did not exceed its jurisdiction in permitting the liquidator to seek impleadment.

Issue (iv): Whether the corrigendum dated 23.03.2021 was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The deletion made by the corrigendum was treated as correction of an accidental slip or omission rather than a review on merits. The Tribunal held that Rule 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 permits correction of such errors, and the modification did not amount to impermissible review.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was within jurisdiction and valid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order and the corrigendum were upheld, and no interference was called for in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an asset dispute is already pending before the civil court and an earlier insolvency order has permitted the sale process to proceed outside CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority may align the liquidation order accordingly; a later correction of an accidental omission in the operative part is not a review if it merely rectifies the record.

---