Tribunal directs transfer approval without dues condition; cites Supreme Court judgment. Appellant to decide within two months.

The tribunal directed the appellant to consider the transfer application in accordance with the existing transfer policy, emphasizing that the appellant's dues should not be a condition for the transfer. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the tribunal clarified that the transfer should comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. The appellant was instructed to assess the transfer application submitted on 16.02.2022 on its merits and make a decision within two months from the order date. Each party was to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of plot to auction purchaser.
2. Recovery of prior dues by the respondent authority.
3. Compliance with the transfer policy and procedure for institutional property management.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Plot to Auction Purchaser:

The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the order dated 14.10.2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which directed the transfer of a plot to the auction purchaser. The plot in question was allotted to the Corporate Debtor, and after the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and subsequent liquidation, the liquidator conducted an e-auction where M/s. Groovy Structures LLP emerged as the highest bidder. The liquidator sought directions from the NCLT for the transfer of the plot to the auction purchaser, which was contested by the appellant on the grounds that the transfer should comply with the existing policy for institutional property management.

2. Recovery of Prior Dues by the Respondent Authority:

The NCLT's order allowed the respondent authority to recover any prior dues by filing a claim before the liquidator. The appellant argued that the NCLT's directive to transfer the plot without considering the transfer policy was not in accordance with the legislative scheme. The appellant maintained that it should be allowed to consider the transfer application as per its policy and that the auction purchaser should not be held liable for pre-CIRP dues, which should be claimed from the liquidator.

3. Compliance with the Transfer Policy and Procedure for Institutional Property Management:

The appellant emphasized the need to adhere to the "Policy & Procedure for Institutional Property Management – March, 2009," which requires an application for transfer to be considered in compliance with the policy's terms and conditions. The appellant was ready to consider the transfer application in accordance with the policy but had initially rejected it due to the pendency of the appeal. The respondent, along with the auction purchaser, had submitted a transfer application, which was rejected by the appellant on the grounds of pending court cases.

Judgment:

The tribunal observed that the appellant's dues could not be a condition for the transfer of the plot. The transfer should be considered as per the terms and conditions of the transfer policy. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Abhilash Lal and Ors., which held that Section 238 of the IB Code does not override the statutory powers of municipal corporations or similar authorities in managing their properties.

The tribunal concluded that the NCLT's order should be interpreted to mean that the appellant is directed to consider the transfer application in accordance with the existing transfer policy. The expression "shall transfer" should not be read to imply an unconditional transfer without compliance with the policy. The appellant was directed to consider the transfer application submitted on 16.02.2022 on its merits and take an appropriate decision within two months from the date of the order.

Directions:

1. The appellant is to consider the transfer application dated 16.02.2022 in accordance with the existing transfer policy.
2. The appellant is to dispose of the application within two months from the date of the order.
3. Each party to bear its own costs.

---