Liquidation estate control and eviction jurisdiction upheld; post-liquidation civil proceedings cannot override insolvency law.

Where premises form part of the liquidation estate, the liquidator's powers to take custody, control, protect and preserve assets extend to seeking eviction and handover of vacant possession, and that request falls within the Adjudicating Authority's residuary insolvency jurisdiction. A Small Causes Court injunction or status quo order does not oust that jurisdiction where it does not purport to control the insolvency forum. Once liquidation has commenced, civil suits or other proceedings against the corporate debtor are barred unless permitted by the Code, and inconsistent proceedings cannot restrict the liquidation process. The eviction order was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under the insolvency regime to direct eviction and handover of vacant possession of premises forming part of the corporate debtor's assets, despite proceedings and an injunction/status quo order before the Small Causes Court. (ii) Whether the civil suit and related proceedings were barred by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 after commencement of liquidation.

Issue (i): Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under the insolvency regime to direct eviction and handover of vacant possession of premises forming part of the corporate debtor's assets, despite proceedings and an injunction/status quo order before the Small Causes Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the liquidator's powers to take custody and control of the corporate debtor's assets, and to protect and preserve them, extend to premises forming part of the liquidation estate. It further held that a request for eviction of a licensee from such premises has a direct nexus with liquidation proceedings and falls within the residuary jurisdiction conferred on the Adjudicating Authority. The existence of a Small Causes Court order did not oust this jurisdiction, particularly when that court itself had noted that its order would not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the insolvency forum.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and allow the eviction application, and the challenge to that jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil suit and related proceedings were barred by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 after commencement of liquidation.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that once a liquidation order had been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding could be instituted by or against the corporate debtor, save as permitted by the Code. It also held that the Code would override inconsistent provisions of other laws, and that the civil suit filed after liquidation commenced could not defeat the insolvency forum's jurisdiction. The plea that repeated auction attempts had failed and that the premises remained under status quo did not alter the statutory bar or the liquidator's right to seek possession for liquidation purposes.

Conclusion: The civil suit and parallel proceedings were treated as barred and incapable of restricting the liquidation process.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order was upheld, the insolvency forum's jurisdiction was affirmed, and the appeal was rejected for want of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where premises form part of the liquidation estate, the Adjudicating Authority may exercise its residuary insolvency jurisdiction to direct eviction and handover of possession, and post-liquidation civil proceedings that conflict with that jurisdiction are barred by the overriding scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---