TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Resolution plan inclusion of third-party land affirmed after challenge to lease cancellation on jurisdictional grounds; appeal dismissed</h1> Resolution plan approval concerned inclusion of third-party land and setting aside a purportedly fraudulent lease; respondents obtained CoC-backed plan ... Approval of resolution plan and inclusion of third-party land in plan - avoidance / preferential transaction - CD, Appellant and other ex-promoters of the CD had fraudulently leased out entire business, plant, machinery and subject land etc. of the CD to a related entity at a grossly undervalued lease rent by a fraudulent lease deed - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the resolution plan submitted by the Respondent No. 2 which was approved by the CoC and was placed before the Adjudicating Authority for approval through an application bearing I.A No. 319 of 2021 contains a provision that land of the personal guarantor as mentioned in the table given in the resolution plan has been made part of the assets of the CD in the IM as stated in detail in the resolution plan. Much emphasis has been given by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant to canvas that the judgment passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.07.2022 with regard to the approval of the resolution plan submitted by Respondent No. 2 and setting aside the lease deed are per incuriam and illegal as the 3rd party property cannot be included in the property of the CD and the RP or the IRP could also not take possession of the same and also that the AA is not having any jurisdiction to cancel the lease deed which is only vested in the Civil Courts. The prayers which has been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority by passing the impugned order are only consequential directions which have been passed on the basis of the judgments already passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.07.2022 with regard to the I.A No. 319 of 2021 and 742 of 2020 and nothing new has been done and the said orders passed on 04.07.2022 have become final and binding on the parties - Any submission with regard to the said judgments of date 04.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and not disturbed by this Appellate Tribunal in aforesaid appeals may not be considered as the said judgments/orders of the Adjudicating Authority has become final and binding on the parties, as no appeal against the aforesaid judgments of this Appellate Tribunal were preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There are no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
