2023 (1) TMI 549 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal Dismissed: Property Ownership Dispute; Appellant Advised to Seek Relief in Civil Court

People Tech Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Versus A.P. Gems and Jewellery Park Pvt. Ltd., ACE Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd., Phoenix Tech Tower Pvt. Ltd., Dr. K.V. Srinivas

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The ... Validity of Approval of Resolution Plan - Litigation regarding dispute over land is pending before Civil Court on behalf of third party - Land belong to corporate debtor or not - in compliance of Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 or not - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the record that the first FIR No. 140/2021 was lodged on 04.02.2021 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant was not in knowledge of the subject case. It is also seen from the record that two more FIRs were lodged by the Resolution Professional against the Appellant and their agents for their attempts to enter the premises of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide an order dated 03.01.2022 which is almost a year after the lodging of the initial FIR. Be that as it may, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the title of the land more so when a Civil Suit has already been preferred by the ‘Appellant’ herein and they have already opted for seeking a remedy before the Civil Court. Having regard to the fact that the main issue raised in this Appeal is with respect to the Dispute regarding the Title of the Subject Land which the Appellant claims was erroneously included in the assets of the Corporate Debtor by the Resolution Professional, which subject matter is already seized by the Civil Court, this Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority2. Dispute regarding ownership of property between Appellant and Corporate Debtor3. Jurisdiction of National Company Law Appellate TribunalIssue 1: Approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating AuthorityThe Appellant challenged the Impugned Order approving the Resolution Plan, arguing that the property in question belonged to them and not the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority based on compliance with relevant regulations and a higher value than the Liquidation Value. The Appellant contended that their rights were being extinguished unjustly by the Resolution Plan.Issue 2: Dispute regarding ownership of property between Appellant and Corporate DebtorThe Appellant claimed ownership of the property in dispute, citing relevant documents and historical acquisition details. They highlighted ongoing legal proceedings seeking injunctions against the Respondents from disturbing their possession. The Resolution Professional was accused of misrepresenting the property as belonging to the Corporate Debtor, leading to a FIR being lodged.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of National Company Law Appellate TribunalThe Tribunal noted that the Appellant had already pursued legal remedies in Civil Court regarding the property dispute. The High Court had dismissed a related Writ Petition due to lack of legal grounds asserted by the Appellant. As the primary issue of property title was already sub judice in the Civil Court, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal for lack of merit and advised the Appellant to seek redressal through the Civil Court if desired.In summary, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the property ownership dispute between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor was already under consideration by the Civil Court, and the Appellant had failed to establish legal grounds for relief in the High Court. As the main issue was being addressed in the Civil Court, the Tribunal deemed the Appeal devoid of merit and advised the Appellant to pursue remedies through the Civil Court in accordance with the law.