Insolvency lease disputes: terminated sub-leases could not be revived, and insolvency jurisdiction remained limited.

An insolvency-related application was treated as maintainable despite an earlier pending interlocutory request, because the earlier matter had not been finally decided and the later filing reflected the change from CIRP to liquidation. The sub-lease agreements were described as validly terminated before admission of the insolvency case, and later conduct, including part allotment of the land to a third party, supported that position; partial rent acceptance did not amount to waiver or revive the leases. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 60(5) was described as wide but limited, extending to protection during moratorium but not to restoring terminated lease rights or granting substantive renewal relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application was maintainable in view of the earlier pending interlocutory application and the procedural posture after liquidation; (ii) whether the sub-lease agreements stood terminated and were no longer in force; (iii) whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the sub-leases.

Issue (i): Whether the application was maintainable in view of the earlier pending interlocutory application and the procedural posture after liquidation.

Analysis: The earlier application sought the same reliefs during the CIRP stage, but the proceeding later moved into liquidation and the role of the resolution professional stood replaced by that of the liquidator. The pending earlier application had not been finally decided, so the later application was treated as filed to meet the procedural requirement and was not barred by res judicata. The interim status quo order already passed was also not treated as unnecessary for deciding maintainability.

Conclusion: The application was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the sub-lease agreements stood terminated and were no longer in force.

Analysis: The termination notice preceded admission of the insolvency application and the moratorium. The subsequent letter also described the sub-leases as terminated and part of the leased land had already been taken over and allotted to a third party, showing that the termination had been acted upon. Acceptance of part-payment of rent did not amount to waiver sufficient to revive the leases, since the arrears and allied dues were not shown to have been cleared in the manner required for relief against forfeiture under the relevant law.

Conclusion: The sub-lease agreements were held to have been validly terminated and were not in force on the date of the application.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the sub-leases.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under section 60(5) of the insolvency law is wide but not unlimited. It does not extend to disputes falling in the realm of public law or to creating a fresh right of renewal where possession has already been lost. The Tribunal's role in relation to lease disputes was held to be confined to protecting the corporate debtor from dispossession during moratorium where the debtor remained in possession, and not to restoring terminated rights or adjudicating matters beyond the insolvency framework.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's jurisdiction was held to be limited and not to extend to granting the substantive relief sought in respect of the terminated sub-leases.

Final Conclusion: The application failed on merits because the leases had already been terminated and the relief sought could not be granted within the Tribunal's insolvency jurisdiction.

---