TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 despite not having performed the contractual obligations under the agreement to sell and the extended memorandum of understanding. (ii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to decide the dispute relating to possession and title of the corporate debtor's property. (iii) Whether the appellant could rely on the contractual clause for double refund of earnest money or specific performance after failure to complete the sale transaction within the extended time.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 despite not having performed the contractual obligations under the agreement to sell and the extended memorandum of understanding.
Analysis: The agreement to sell and the subsequent memorandum of understanding extended the last date for payment and completion of the sale transaction, with the final date fixed as 30.11.2018. The appellant had not paid the full consideration or otherwise performed his part of the contract within the extended period. Section 53A protects possession only when the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract. In the absence of such performance, the appellant's possession could not continue to enjoy statutory protection.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Issue (ii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to decide the dispute relating to possession and title of the corporate debtor's property.
Analysis: Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers wide jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority over questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency or liquidation proceedings, while Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. The dispute concerned whether the asset in question formed part of the corporate debtor's estate in CIRP, which had a direct nexus with the insolvency proceedings. The cited authorities were distinguished on their facts, and the dispute was held to be one falling within insolvency jurisdiction rather than a collateral civil controversy.
Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Issue (iii): Whether the appellant could rely on the contractual clause for double refund of earnest money or specific performance after failure to complete the sale transaction within the extended time.
Analysis: The contractual clause for double refund or specific performance was contingent on the seller backing out after the purchaser had complied with his own obligations. Here, the appellant failed to make full and final payment within the extended deadline, and the agreement stood cancelled by the parties' own stipulation. The claim for double earnest money therefore did not arise on the facts found by the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The appellant could not invoke the contractual clause for double refund of earnest money or specific performance.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material grounds, and the order directing the appellant to vacate the property was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is unavailable where the transferee has not performed his part of the contract, and the insolvency tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 over disputes having a direct nexus with the insolvency estate of the corporate debtor.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
