Court orders return of equipment to Appellant, denying claimed amount and directing costs.

The court upheld the impugned order but directed the Successful Resolution Applicant and the Monitoring Committee to return the equipment to the Appellant. The Appellant was not entitled to any claimed amount for equipment usage, with all return expenses to be borne by the Appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether delivery of Bill of Lading (BoL) to the Corporate Debtor constitutes a transfer of title to goods.
2. Whether the Appellant continued to be the owner of the equipment due to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Orders and Invoices.
3. Whether the Appellant, as an Operational Creditor, is entitled to request the removal of the equipment from the list of fixed assets of the Corporate Debtor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and claim return of those equipment under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether delivery of Bill of Lading (BoL) to the Corporate Debtor constitutes a transfer of title to goods:
The judgment discusses the definition of "document of title to goods" under Section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which includes a bill of lading. The delivery of such a document generally amounts to a transfer of title to goods. However, the court notes that the intention of the parties and the specific terms of the contract are crucial in determining whether the property in the goods has passed to the buyer. The court references various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in 'J.V. Gokal & Co. Pvt. Ltd.' and the principle that a bill of lading represents the goods and its transfer operates as a transfer of the goods. Despite this, the court concludes that the delivery of the BoL in this case did not constitute a transfer of ownership due to the specific terms and conditions in the Purchase Orders and Invoices, which stipulated that ownership would remain with the seller until full payment was made.

2. Whether the Appellant continued to be the owner of the equipment due to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Orders and Invoices:
The court examines the terms and conditions of the Purchase Orders and Invoices, which included clauses reserving ownership of the equipment until full payment was made. It is noted that the Corporate Debtor paid only 30% of the purchase price, and the balance 70% remained unpaid. The court refers to the definition of an "unpaid seller" under Section 45 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and the rights of an unpaid seller under Sections 46 and 50, which include a lien on the goods and the right to stop goods in transit. The court concludes that the Appellant, as an unpaid seller, retained ownership of the equipment and that the inclusion of the equipment in the list of assets of the Corporate Debtor was erroneous.

3. Whether the Appellant, as an Operational Creditor, is entitled to request the removal of the equipment from the list of fixed assets of the Corporate Debtor in the CIRP and claim return of those equipment under the provisions of the IBC:
The court discusses the duties of the Resolution Professional under Section 18(1)(f) of the IBC, which include taking control and custody of any asset over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership rights. The court also references the Explanation to Section 18, which excludes assets owned by a third party and in possession of the Corporate Debtor under contractual arrangements from being considered as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The court concludes that the Appellant, as an unpaid seller and owner of the equipment, is entitled to have the equipment removed from the list of fixed assets of the Corporate Debtor and returned to the Appellant. The court directs the Successful Resolution Applicant and the Monitoring Committee to assist in the return of the equipment to the Appellant, with all expenses for the return to be borne by the Appellant.

Conclusion:
The court upholds the impugned order dated 22.06.2021 but directs the Successful Resolution Applicant and the Monitoring Committee to hand over the equipment to the Appellant. The Appellant is not entitled to any amount claimed for the usage of the equipment. The court emphasizes that all expenses for the return of the equipment shall be borne by the Appellant.

---