Resolution plan inclusion of third-party land affirmed after challenge to lease cancellation on jurisdictional grounds; appeal dismissed

Resolution plan approval concerned inclusion of third-party land and setting aside a purportedly fraudulent lease; respondents obtained CoC-backed plan approval which treated guarantor land as CD assets, and earlier adjudicating authority orders setting aside the lease were treated as final and binding. Appellant contended that third-party property cannot be included and that cancellation of lease falls outside the adjudicating authoritys jurisdiction, but those contentions were rejected as the impugned directions were consequential to prior final orders and no illegality was found, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 granting prayers (a), (b) and (c) of I.A. No. 1576 of 2022 is illegal or unsustainable, or is a permissible consequential order implementing earlier final orders approving the resolution plan and setting aside the lease deed.

Analysis: The Tribunal examines the impugned order in the context of earlier orders dated 04.07.2022: (i) approval of the resolution plan under the Code which included certain third-party lands as assets of the corporate debtor and imposed obligations on personal guarantors pursuant to Section 31, and (ii) an avoidance order under Sections 43, 45, 49 and 66 setting aside the lease deed and vesting the land in the corporate debtor. The Appellate Tribunal had previously dismissed appeals against those orders (CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 1267 of 2022 and 985 of 2022), and those appellate dismissals were not challenged before the Supreme Court, rendering the earlier orders final and binding. The impugned order merely issues consequential directions to effect registration and payment directions consistent with the approved resolution plan and the avoidance order. The Tribunal therefore treats the I.A. No. 1576/2022 reliefs as implementation of the final orders and not as fresh or independent adjudication of title or jurisdictional matters already finally decided.

Conclusion: The appeal is devoid of merit. The impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is not illegal; it is a consequential implementation of the earlier final orders approving the resolution plan and setting aside the lease deed. The appeal is dismissed.

---