Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional...
Finality of an eviction decree between landlord and tenant barred the corporate debtor from disputing the appellant's ownership in CIRP, because the lease had expired and the eviction decree had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. A status quo order in separate land-vesting proceedings, passed only between the appellant and the State, did not revive any possession right for a non-party occupier. Only ownership or a subsisting enforceable right can bring property within insolvency control; unlawful occupation after lease expiry is not an asset of the corporate debtor. The property was excluded from CIRP, consequential actions were treated as non-est, and the appellant was left to pursue possession and mesne profits.
Finality of an eviction decree between landlord and tenant barred the corporate debtor from disputing the appellant's ownership in CIRP, because the lease had expired and the eviction decree had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. A status quo order in separate land-vesting proceedings, passed only between the appellant and the State, did not revive any possession right for a non-party occupier. Only ownership or a subsisting enforceable right can bring property within insolvency control; unlawful occupation after lease expiry is not an asset of the corporate debtor. The property was excluded from CIRP, consequential actions were treated as non-est, and the appellant was left to pursue possession and mesne profits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
