Third-party title dispute over CIRP asset failed to justify exclusion from the resolution process or disclosure directions.

A third-party claimant seeking exclusion of property from CIRP must show a clear and established right before the Tribunal will interfere with the resolution process. Where the disputed asset forms part of the corporate debtor's factory premises, is integrated with its business assets, and the claimant's title is already under challenge in a pending civil suit, interlocutory relief to exclude the property or compel disclosure of the information memorandum, resolution plan, and CoC minutes is not warranted. The pending title dispute and asserted apprehension, without more, do not justify exercise of inherent powers to restrain consideration of the resolution plan. The applications were rejected and the rejection orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, claiming title to a property alleged to be part of the corporate debtor's industrial premises and already subject to a pending civil suit, was entitled to directions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to exclude that property from the resolution process and to compel disclosure of the information memorandum, resolution plan, and CoC minutes.

Analysis: The applications were founded on the appellant's claim that the scheduled property was a third-party asset and therefore could not be dealt with in the CIRP. The Tribunal noted, however, that the property formed part of the factory premises, had conveyor systems running over it, and was intertwined with the corporate debtor's business assets. The appellant's own title was under challenge in a pending civil suit, and the sequence of transfers took place when insolvency proceedings were already underway. In these circumstances, the alleged ownership dispute could not be treated as established so as to justify interference in the CIRP or to restrain consideration of a resolution plan. The Tribunal also held that the pending suit and asserted apprehension did not warrant exercise of inherent power to issue the requested directions.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the requested reliefs, and the rejection of both interlocutory applications called for no appellate interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on merits and the impugned rejection orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A third-party claimant whose title to property is itself under adjudication in a civil suit cannot, on an interlocutory basis, obtain exclusion of that property from CIRP or compel procedural directions in the resolution process absent a clear and established right.

---