https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794285 Insolvency jurisdiction could not be used to dispossess a transferee already in possession where written agreements to sell had been acted upon, consideration was paid, and a civil suit for specific performance ended in a final consent decree recognising possessory rights. The consent decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC could not be overridden or treated as appealable by the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act supported the transferee's protective possession, and the absence of registered conveyances did not justify summary divestment. Pending proceedings under Section 66 of the IBC could continue separately, but they did not authorise immediate handing over of possession to the Resolution Professional. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794285 Insolvency jurisdiction could not be used to dispossess a transferee already in possession where written agreements to sell had been acted upon, consideration was paid, and a civil suit for specific performance ended in a final consent decree recognising possessory rights. The consent decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC could not be overridden or treated as appealable by the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act supported the transferee's protective possession, and the absence of registered conveyances did not justify summary divestment. Pending proceedings under Section 66 of the IBC could continue separately, but they did not authorise immediate handing over of possession to the Resolution Professional. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794285