TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Udai Khanna, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Ms. Ashita Chawla, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Arijit Prasad Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Ms. Apoorva Chowdhury, Advocates for RP/ R1. Mr. Krishnendu Datta Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nishtha Kauza, Ms. Alina Mathew, Mr. Kumar Shubham, Advocates for Art. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Advocate with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Manav Goyal, Ms. Ritika Prasad, Ms. Tanushvi Singh, Advocates for Parinda JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. These two Appeals have been filed by the same Appellant challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-III. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1117 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in IA No. 4648 of 2020 which was filed by the Appellant. By the impugned order the IA No. 4648 of 2020 has been disposed of. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1116 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Intervention Petition IA No. 58 of 2023 by which order Adjudicating Authority has allowed the intervention application filed by M/s. Art Constructio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed two legal notices dated 17.02.2012 and 22.02.2012 alleging that the corporate debtor has not been able to discharge its obligations under the Collaboration Agreement. By the legal notices, Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008, addendum dated 28.10.2009, Assignment Agreement dated 25.01.2010 and General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2008 were terminated. The developers were called upon to desist from dealing with project property. The developers objected to the legal notice and asked to withdraw the allegations made in the legal notice. M/s. Era Landmarks (India) Ltd. and 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited' filed an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointing Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties in terms of the Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008. In the application, owners as well as M/s. Upkar Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as Respondents. High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore vide its order dated 20.04.2012 appointed Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as Sole Arbitrator to arbitrate and adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opment of the properties mentioned therein. The properties mentioned therein were the properties of 35 acres 11 Guntas which was subject to the Development Agreement. The Resolution Professional after coming to know about the above notice dated 07.08.2020 sent objection in response to the public notice. Resolution Professional stated that the Corporate Debtor- Era Landmarks Ltd. is currently under CIRP. Reference of Collaboration Agreement executed by owners dated 05.07.2008 was made and Resolution Professional pleaded that any step dealing the property shall be violation of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. Appellant issued a reply to the objection of the Resolution Professional. An IA No.4648 of 2020 was filed by the Appellant in the CIRP of the corporate debtor praying that the Tribunal may please to direct removal of the schedule property from the CIRP and schedule property be deleted from the Information Memorandum circulated by the Resolution Professional. In the IA No.4648 of 2020, orders were passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 21.12.2021 observing that IA No.4648 of 2020 does not contain a prayer. An IA for rectification was also dismissed. Appellants filed Compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per the Agreement dated 05.07.2008, the possession was not handed over to the developers rather they were authorised to enter upon the schedule property and develop the same. The order passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed on an application filed by the corporate debtor and 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited' determined the rights of the parties which have attained finality. Order dated 15.07.2015 is an award delivered by the Sole Arbitrator which is binding between the parties. Challenge to the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator by the corporate debtor and 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited' has been dismissed both by the Civil Court as well as the High Court, hence, the award delivered by the Arbitrator has become final between the parties and could not have been questioned by the corporate debtor in the CIRP proceedings. Sole Arbitrator has returned finding that 1st Claimant i.e. Era Landmarks (India) Ltd. has not retained any one of its rights which accrued to it from the Collaboration Agreement, meaning thereby, that no right could have been pursued either before the Sole Arbitrator or before the Adjudicating Authority on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in IA No.4648 of 2020. Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is unsustainable and IA No.4648 of 2020 deserves to be allowed excluding the subject land from the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. 5. Shri Arijit Prasad, Learned Senior Counsel for the Resolution Professional refuting the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant submits that the corporate debtor had acquired development rights in the subject land consequent to Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008 and Supplementary/Addendum Agreement dated 28.10.2009. It is submitted that the Assignment Agreement dated 25.01.2010 was executed in favour of 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited', the subsidiary of the corporate debtor only for operational convenience. The Corporate Debtor retained its obligation of being responsible to perform the terms of the Collaboration Agreement in case of default or failure by 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited'. Appellants were also consenting parties to the Assignment Agreement. In terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Corporate Debtor and 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited' repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.17.19 Crores to HUDCO and an amount of Rs.1.34 crores was also directly paid to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator terminating the arbitration proceedings is not an award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further submitted that a duly registered Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008 entered into between the parties cannot be unilaterally terminated by way of a legal notice without following the due process of law. The legal notice issued by the Appellants has no consequence on registered Collaboration Agreement. The Assignment Agreement dated 25.01.2010 executed by the corporate debtor in favour of 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited' its wholly owned subsidiary was only partial assignment of rights for operational convenience and that too limited to implementation and marketing under the Collaboration Agreement does not amount to novation of contract. The Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008 still continues and cannot be treated to be novated by Assignment Agreement. The Corporate Debtor had paid Rs.64 Crores in respect of the scheduled land to the Appellants which have not been returned by the Appellants to the corporate debtor. The Resolution Plan in respect of Corporate Debtor has already been approved by the CoC an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Learned Counsel for the parties and materials on record, following are the questions which arise for consideration in these Appeals:- (I) Whether the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to enter into issue as to whether the subject land is asset of the corporate debtor and for decision of the question, the parties were required to be relegated to the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction? (II) Whether proceedings conducted by Sole Arbitrator and the orders passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 27.05.2014 and 15.07.2015 amounts to arbitral award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 determining the rights of both the parties so as to bind the parties in any subsequent proceedings? (III) Whether the IRP/ RP could or could not have included the subject land in the Information Memorandum/ CIRP process of the corporate debtor by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation? (IV) Whether Adjudicating Authority erred in not allowing the IA No.4648 of 2020 as prayed by the Appellant? (V) Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed error in allowing the IA No.58 of 2023 filed by the SRA? 10. Before we come to the questions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of the work and type of work which is being done on the Schedule Property." 12. Clause 3.3 deals with 'Cost and Expenses'. Under clause 3.3, developers agree to pay Rs.35,00,00,000/- towards interest free refundable security deposit to the first party (owners). Clause 3.3 is as follows:- "3.3 That the Developers agree to pay to the First Party the following sum of money as Refundable Security Deposit. a. Rs.35,00,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty live Crores only) towards interest free Refundable Security Deposit. b. 37% of the Sale Proceeds of the Said Project, net of marketing expenses. However, it is agreed that the above Security Deposit @ 5% of the First Party's share shall be recovered from the Sale Proceeds till Rs. 35.00 Crores of security Deposit is cleared." 13. Clause 3.4 contained the manner of deposit of refundable deposit by the Developers. Clause 6 dealt with 'Term & Termination'. Clause 6 of the Collaboration Agreement is as follows:- "6. TERM & TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated on the happening of any of the following events: a) By Mutual consent of the First Party and the Developers by execution o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per, having invested further monies into the project. finds it impractical to back off, may continue with the project as envisaged till completion. The share of sale proceeds of the First Party shall go to the account of the First party or his successors or legal heirs." 14. Clause 8 dealt with the 'Dispute Resolution'. Clause 9.2 dealt with the assignment in following manner:- "9.2 Either party shall not assign or transfer its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Other Party." 15. An Addendum (Supplementary) to Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008 was executed between the parties on 28.10.2009 for certain changes in the Collaboration Agreement with regard to share of the owners and developers and certain provisions with regard to payment of Refundable Security Deposit. As per Addendum, owners' share was determined as 29.5% and developers share was provided for 70.5%. Refundable Security Deposit was changed from Rs.35,00,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,00,000/-. 16. An Assignment Agreement was executed on 25.01.2010 between 'M/s. Era Landmarks Ltd.'- First Party, 'M/s. Parinda Buildcon Private Limited', a subsidiary of 'M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....' initiated arbitration proceedings, details of which we shall notice hereinafter. 18. Now we proceed to consider the questions as noted above. QUESTION No.(I) 19. The first question which needs to be considered is as whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to enter into issue as to whether the subject land is asset of the corporate debtor or the parties were required to be relegated to the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction. 20. The Information Memorandum which was prepared by the Resolution Professional reflected the subject land as a land in which the Corporate Debtor has development rights by virtue of Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008. The Assets of a corporate debtor are foundation for any CIRP process. All subsequent acts including inviting EoI, Resolution Plan are based on asset which is claimed as asset of the Corporate Debtor. In the CIRP process of a Corporate Debtor, determination of the assets, preparation of Information Memorandum is a solemn duty of the Resolution Professional. Under Section 29 of the IBC, Information Memorandum is to be prepared for being used for CIRP process by the Resolution Professional. 21. The Resoluti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. The creation of these bundle of rights and interests was actually for a valid consideration. But for the payment of such consideration, Energy Properties would not even have become the owner of the property in dispute. Therefore, the development rights created in favour of the corporate debtor constitute "property" within the meaning of the expression under Section 3(27) IBC. At the cost of repetition, it must be recapitulated that the definition of the expression "property" under Section 3(27) includes "every description of interest, including present or future or vested or contingent interest arising out of or incidental to property". Since the expression "asset" in common parlance denotes "property of any kind", the bundle of rights that the corporate debtor has over the property in question would constitute "asset" within the meaning of Section 18(1)(f) and Section 25(2)(a) IBC." 23. In the very same judgment of "Victory Iron Works Ltd." (supra), one of the questions was as to whether NCLT and NCLAT had jurisdiction in the facts of the said case. In the above case, the Corporate Debtor- Avani Towers Pvt. Ltd. held Joint Development Agreement in respect of property in q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Property Developments (P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka- (2020) 13 SCC 308". The above was a case where NCLT Chennai has passed an order on an application filed by the Resolution Professional for setting aside the order of rejection passed by the Government of Karnataka and seeking direction to Government of Karnataka to execute supplementary lease deed. Corporate Debtor held mining lease under MMDR Act, 1957. The proposal for deemed extension of the lease was rejected by the Government of Karnataka. In the above facts, against the order of the NCLT, Chennai allowing the prayers of Resolution Professional, Government of Karnataka filed a W.P. in the High Court of Karnataka where interim order was passed staying the operations and directions of the NCLT. The Embassy Property has filed the appeal challenging the interim order of the High Court. In the above reference, the issue of jurisdiction of the NCLT came for consideration. In the above case, following was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 37, 40 and 41:- "37. From a combined reading of sub-section (4) and sub-section (2) of Section 60 with Section 179, it is clear that none of them hold the key to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, subject to the determination of ownership by a court or other authority. In fact an asset owned by a third party, but which is in the possession of the corporate debtor under contractual arrangements, is specifically kept out of the definition of the term "assets" under the Explanation to Section 18. This assumes significance in view of the language used in Sections 18 and 25 in contrast to the language employed in Section 20. Section 18 speaks about the duties of the interim resolution professional and Section 25 speaks about the duties of resolution professional. These two provisions use the word "assets", while Section 20(1) uses the word "property" together with the word "value". Sections 18 and 25 do not use the expression "property". Another important aspect is that under Section 25(2)(b) of the IBC, 2016, the resolution professional is obliged to represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties and exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial and arbitration proceedings. Sections 25(1) and 25(2)(b) reads as follows: "25. Duties of resolution professional.-(1) It shall be the duty of the resolution prof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ckground, we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to examine the application on merits and take a decision as to whether the subject land can be treated to be asset of the corporate debtor or not. Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 47 has made following observations: - "47. Further, it will not be out of place to mention that the disputes that have arisen in this case are complex in nature and go to the root of the validity of the Collaboration Agreement, the Assignment Agreement and the Legal Notices given by the Applicants and also as to whether the right, title, interest and possession over the Scheduled "Properties have been transferred to the Corporate Debtor and to the Parinda (PBPL) by virtue of the said Agreement and the fact that the Ld. Arbitrator had framed several issues concerning the rights of the parties. We are therefore, of the view that such issues involving disputed questions of facts cannot be determined in a summary proceeding under the IBC and have to be determined by a Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction after recording evidence." 29. The question as to whether the assets which are included in the Information Mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Sole Arbitrator is an award within the meaning of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and have finality between the parties. As noted above, an application filed by M/s. Era Landmarks Ltd. and 'Parinda Buildcon Private Limited' before the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in which application by an order dated 20.04.2012, Sole Arbitrator was appointed. Both the Applicants filed statement of claim before the Sole Arbitrator claiming their rights on the basis of Collaboration Agreement dated 05.07.2008, Addendum dated 28.10.2009 and the Assignment Agreement dated 25.01.2010. Claimant also pleaded the payments made to the HUDCO as well as amount paid to the owners as per the Collaboration Agreement. In the claim petition, amount of Rs.64,04,81,076/- was claimed. Appellant has prayed in the claim petition for declaration of the Collaboration Agreement, Addendum, General Power of Attorney and Assignment Agreement as legally valid and subsisting. The owners filed their objections to the claim petition. One of the questions which came for consideration before the arbitrator was as to whether the document dated 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimant and by withdrawing the reliance/reference to the assignment deed dated January 25, 2010; (ii) proceed with the arbitration proceedings by taking the applicant to be the sole claimant and the arbitration proceedings and the claims being arising only out of the collaboration agreement dated July 5, 2008 and the addendum thereto dated October 28, 2009;. (iii) grant any other relief, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is still further respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be allowed as prayed for." 35. The Sole Arbitrator on 02.01.2015 considered the application. The prayers of the claimants to take back the document and the prayer that the proceedings of impounding of the document be dropped, was rejected. In paragraph 16, following was held:- "16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the prayer of the claimant to take back the document in question, as also the prayer that the proceedings of impounding of the document in question be dropped, is rejected." 36. In proceeding dated 08.05.2015, the Tribunal allowed the prayer to delete applicant no.2 from the array ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a party to this petition. Hence, since there being no claimants eligible to pursue this claim petition, the undersigned is of the opinion that the claim petition has become infructuous, consequently, this arbitration proceedings is liable to be terminated, 31. There is a counter claim petition filed by the respondents before this Tribunal, which the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents are legally entitled to pursue its claim independent of the main claim petition. This will be considered separately. 32. So far as proceedings in claim petition filed by M/s. Era Land Marks. Limited arid Parinda Build Con Pvt Ltd before this Tribunal, is terminated for the reasons mentioned herein above." 39. The proceedings in claim petition filed by M/s. Era Landmarks Ltd. was thus, terminated by order dated 15.07.2015. 40. It is relevant to notice that against the order dated 15.07.2015, M.A. No.37 of 2015 was filed by both the Claimants before the Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. An application being IA No.3 was filed objecting to maintainability of the M.A. After hearing the parties, Ld. Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge took the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order passed by the Trial Court, Misc. First Appeal No. 10068 of 2018 was filed by both the Claimants in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru which also came to be dismissed by the judgment and order of the High Court dated 25.06.2019. High Court in the above judgment held that the order dated 15.07.2015 is an order under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. In paragraphs 4 and 5, High Court held following:- "4. I have perused the entire impugned order. "It can very well be said that the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. on 15.07.2015 amounts to an order passed according to Section 32 (2) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This kind of an order is not challengeable and cannot be questioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In a case decided by the Bombay High Court in Anuptech Equipments. Private Ltd., Vs. Ganpati Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai and others reported in 1999 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal, it field as below: "10: ..................What that means is that the expression order and award are distinct and different. One is termination of proceedings without deciding the merits o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties agree on the termination of the proceedings, or (c) the arbitral tribunal finds that the continuation of the proceedings has for any other reason become unnecessary or impossible. (3) Subject to section 33 and sub-section (4) of section 34, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate with the termination of the arbitral proceedings." 45. Section 34 deals with 'application for setting aside arbitral awards'. Section 34(1) provides as follows:- "34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards. (1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub- section (2) and sub-section (3)." 46. Section 35 deals with 'finality of arbitral awards' which is as follows:- "35. Finality of arbitral awards.- Subject to this Part an arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively." 47. Section 36 deals with 'enforcement' and Section 37 deals with 'appealable orders'. When we look into Section 32, the statutory scheme provides that arbitral proceedings shall be terminated by the final arbitral award or by an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the arbitrator but the proceeding did not progress at all and as such, the arbitration proceeding was terminated as per provision u/s 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. II) As per Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the order had passed by the arbitrator is not award at all. Moreover, the petitioner was given several opportunities to file his statement of claim and to proceed with the arbitration proceeding but the petitioner taking advantage of the contempt proceeding, took several attempts to conclude the proceeding and the proceeding was delayed due to Act of the petitioner. The arbitration proceeding is a time-bound factor. Therefore, in view of the above observation, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the observation of the Ld. Arbitrator. Moreover, the order passed by the arbitrator is not an award and no Misc. Case lies u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Accordingly, this Misc. Case is not maintainable at all." 50. Calcutta High Court also noticed Section 25 as well as Section 32 of the Act, 1996 and in paragraph 8 of the judgment has observed "an order under Section 32(2) would not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the proceedings has, for any reason, become unnecessary or impossible. 12. Termination of proceedings under Section 25(a) is a final decision which puts an end to the arbitral proceedings. The decision amounts to rejection of the claim, even though there is no adjudication on merits. It is, akin to dismissal of a suit on a technical ground, may be, non prosecution. 13. There is a difference between a decision which puts an end to the arbitral proceedings and a decision whereby the arbitrator withdraws from the proceedings. Where the arbitrator withdraws from the proceedings, a substitute arbitrator may be appointed in accordance with the procedure, applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator who is replaced, but where the arbitrator puts an end to the arbitral proceedings, the claimant cannot pursue his claim. 14. The decision of the arbitral tribunal to put an end to the proceedings is a final award which can only challenged by way of an application for setting aside under Section 34 Sub-section (2) of the 1996 Act. Once the arbitral proceedings are terminated, the claimant cannot re-agitate the same claim by initiation of fresh proceedings since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der' and an 'award' lies in the fact whether the decision of the arbitral tribunal affects the rights of the parties, concluding the dispute as to the specific issue, and has finality attached to the same. 26. In the present case, the impugned Award has resulted in termination of the arbitration proceedings and would bar the petitioner from re-agitating the same in any other proceedings. The said award, therefore, has finality attached to it and determines a vital right of the parties." 55. The order which was challenged was held to be award amenable to proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which has been held in paragraph 29 of the judgment. The above case was not a case of termination of arbitration proceedings under Section 33(2) rather a case of rejecting an application for substitution of legal heirs. Thus, the issue which has arisen in the present case was neither considered nor decided. 56. Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on a subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court in "PCL Suncon vs. National Highway Authority of India- 2021 SCC OnLine Del 313". The order under challenge before the Delhi High Court was an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed in the aforesaid context, it is clear that an order, which terminates the arbitral proceedings as the Arbitral Tribunal finds it impossible or unnecessary to continue the arbitral proceedings, would not be an award. This is so because it does not answer any issue in dispute in arbitration between the parties; but is an expression of the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal not to proceed with the proceedings." 58. It is relevant to notice that both the cases relied by the Appellant i.e. 'Indian Trade Company' and 'Joginder Singh Dahiya' was also considered by the Delhi High Court and noticed in the judgment. 59. In view of the statutory scheme of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as noted above and the fact that both City Civil & Session Court Judge as well as High Court of Karnataka having held that the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator is an order under Section 33(2)(c), the order dated 15.07.2015 cannot be held to be arbitral award within the meaning of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 so as to make it binding on the parties under Section 35 of the Act. Thus, in view of the fact that the Sole Arbitrator terminated the arbitration proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest of justice and equity." 64. While answering the Question No.(I) as above, we have already held that the development rights claimed by the corporate debtor is a property within the meaning of Section 3(27) and the RP has to include the assets in which the corporate debtor has development rights. 65. Shri Maninder Singh, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant relying on Section 18(1)(f) explanation submits that the IRP can take control and custody of only those assets over which the corporate debtor has ownership as recorded in the balance sheets. It is undisputed fact that the ownership rights in the subject land still vest with the Appellants. Counsel for the Appellant referring to explanation also submits that the assets which are owned by third party and in possession of the corporate debtor held under trust or under contractual agreement are excluded from the definition of asset. Hence, subject property which is owned by the Appellants cannot be taken into custody by the IRP by virtue of above statutory scheme. 66. The present is a case where corporate debtor is not claiming any ownership rights over the subject land. Corporate debtor is claiming development righ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd.- Second Party and Mr. K. H. Khan, Mrs. Shaheda Begum and Mr. Karar Ahmed as Third Party. Thus, the owners are also part of the agreement, hence, the assignment is made in accordance with Clause 9.2 of the Collaboration Agreement. We have already extracted Clause 3 of the agreement which provided "all the terms and conditions of the agreement shall continue without any change" and it was further stated that the Assignment Agreement shall form part of the agreement and shall read together with the agreement. Assignment Agreement did not cancel the Collaboration Agreement and to be read as part of the Agreement. Agreement at very beginning has noticed that the First Party has resolved and decided to transfer all its rights, duties and obligations under the Agreement to the Second Party for operational convenience of implementing and marketing the project envisaged in the Agreement to which the second party has agreed. We have already held that the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator is not an award within the meaning of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 70. We may also refer to the judgment of this Tribunal in "Nilesh Sharma, Resolution Professional-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Information Memorandum/ CIRP and he was not precluded by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation from asserting development rights in the subject land. (IV) Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not allowing IA No.4648 of 2020 which prayed for exclusion of subject land from the Resolution Plan/CIRP of the corporate debtor. QUESTION NO. (V) 72. Question No.(V) relates to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 30.04.2024 passed in IA No.58 of 2023. We have noticed above that the Resolution Plan of 'M/s. Art Construction Pvt. Ltd.' in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was approved by the CoC on 15.09.2022/ 06.12.2022 with majority vote of 82.66%. The Applicant- Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. who had filed an Intervention Petition was the SRA whose plan was approved by the CoC. Adjudicating Authority while deciding the Intervention Petition observed following in paragraph 3:- "3. Having regard to the fact that the present intervention has been filed by the M/s. Art Construction Pvt. Ltd., who is the major stakeholder in the resolution of the Corporate Debtor and since the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC in its 27th meeting dat....