2026 (4) TMI 77 - AT - IBC

Finality of resolution professional's possession and access barred re-agitation; direction for full access was set aside.

The direction requiring the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the premises was unsustainable because possession and access had already ... Withdrawal of application - Finality of possession with resolution professional - Access rights of third-party occupants. Finality of possession with resolution professional - Suspended director's access claim - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Tribunal held that the earlier order granting possession and access to the Resolution Professional had already become final, including after dismissal of the appeal against it. In consequence, the Resolution Professional's possession and control over the premises could no longer be disputed by the suspended director. The Adjudicating Authority therefore erred in permitting withdrawal of the application while simultaneously directing the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the applicant, since such a direction effectively reopened a matter that had already attained finality. [Paras 13, 15] The direction requiring the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the respondent was set aside. Access rights of third-party occupants - Liberty to seek independent relief - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Tribunal did not adjudicate the entitlement of other entities said to be operating from the premises. It held that, if such entities claimed obstruction by the Resolution Professional, it was open to them to file appropriate applications before the Adjudicating Authority, and the setting aside of the impugned direction would not prejudice their right to pursue such remedies in accordance with law. [Paras 14] Relief, if any, for such entities was left open to be sought by them through appropriate independent applications. Final Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The direction compelling the Resolution Professional to provide full access to the respondent was set aside, while liberty was reserved to any other affected entities to approach the Adjudicating Authority independently in accordance with law. Issues: Whether the direction requiring the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the premises could be sustained when the Resolution Professional's possession and access had already attained finality.Analysis: The possession and access secured by the Resolution Professional were treated as final by the earlier order and the dismissal of the appeal against that order. In that setting, the Respondent could not re-agitate the same question of possession and access. The order under challenge, so far as it required the Resolution Professional to ensure full access, could not stand. At the same time, any separate grievance of third parties claiming access to conduct business from the premises was left open to be pursued before the Adjudicating Authority in appropriate proceedings.Conclusion: The direction to ensure full access was set aside and the appeal was partly allowed in favour of the Appellant.