TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 411 / 2024, the Appellant puts a challenge to the order passed in Contempt Petition No. 02/7/HDB/2024 in CP (IB ) No.678/7/HDB/2018, filed under Section 60(5) of I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, by virtue of which the said Petition was dismissed by the learned NCLT, Hyderabad. 2. The facts which engage consideration in the instant Company Appeals are that, it has got an elaborative background, but, looking at the limited controversy and the nature of orders which has been subject to challenge before this Tribunal, there would be very narrow confines, which we are required to venture into, to decide the Appeals. 3(a). Factually, it chanced so, that the Financial Creditor M/s. Axis Bank Limited, had preferred a Petition for initiation of the CIRP proceedings, under Section 7 of I & B Code, 2016, which was numbered as CP(IB)/678/7/HDB/2018, praying for initiation of the CIRP proceedings against the present Appellant i.e. M/s. Lanco Kondapalli Private Limited, the alleged 'Corporate Debtor' ('CD'). (b). On account of the fact that, since the CIRP proceedings stood initiated on 23.09.2019 and as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de in favour of Radha Vasavi Assets LLP and also issued an addendum to the sale certificate on 10.11.2023. (g). On 18.07.2023, the Liquidator sent an email to Respondent No. 1 stating therein that, the sale of the CD has been successfully completed, as a going concern including the transfer of plant, machinery, land and ongoing operations to the Appellant, that payment for Phase III assets and the dis-mantling of assets have not commenced yet and that, the Appellant herein, being the owner of the land where Phase III assets are located, has expressed a request for remittance of rent for the land area occupied by such Phase III assets. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 / MCM, in their email communication of 19.07.2023, acknowledged the receipt of the email and requested the Liquidator / Respondent No. 2 to ascertain from the Appellant herein, the amount of rent expected and the extent of land which is occupied by the assets of Phase III, while acknowledging the Appellant herein as the landowner. (h). The Liquidator / Respondent No. 2, vide his communication of 19.07.2023 has informed that, there is totally 40 acres of land, which is occupied by the Phase III assets. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owner of the Phase III assets is, that as per their view, the Liquidator still remains the owner of the Phase III assets and accordingly, requested the Appellant to withdraw the email sent, failing which, they will have to approach the Competent Court of Law. 6. The Respondent No. 2 / Liquidator contends that, he sent the email on 27.11.2023 to the Appellant, acknowledging the issuance of the sale certificate dated 30.06.2023 and an addendum to the sale certificate dated 10.11.2023 issued in favour of the Appellant and the fact of appointment of Mr. Sunil Kumar Saraf and Mr. Yerram Vijay Kumar as directors on the board of the Appellant and that any further correspondences, in respect of the preservation and maintenance of the assets with regard to the maintenance of the assets, should be done with 'Radha Smelters Pvt. Ltd.'. 7. Owing to the aforesaid situation, the Respondent No. 1 moved IA (IB) No. 1585 / HDB / 2023, as preferred in CP(IB) No. 678 / 7 / HDB / 2023, before the learned NCLT, Hyderabad, which granted the prayer as sought for, on 22.12.2023, subject to the condition that the Respondent No. 1 furnishes within two weeks a valid irrevocable Bank Guarantee of the amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime and permit the Applicant to deposit the balance amount till 30.09.2023; and / or b) Pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.'' This Application came up for consideration before the learned Adjudicating Authority and the learned Adjudicating Authority after considering the rival contentions, on the main relief as well as on the issue of occupation of the said land, passed an order on 02.08.2023. The observations made with respect to the dispute concerning use of land in question is contained in Para 9 of the said Order, which is extracted hereunder: ''9. One another issue that arises in the course of this proceedings is the payment of rent for use and occupation of the land on which the present goods are lying. The Land has been sold to a third party by the liquidator and third party claims rent for use and occupation. While it appears that the demand by land owners is around Rs.1.5 Crore (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) approx. per month the Successful Auction Purchaser / Applicant herein states that they have negotiated with the land owner / purchasers. It is open to the Successful Auction Purchaser to get the assis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IBC) No. 1221 / 2023, and the Impugned Order of 04.10.2024 are taken into account nothing material is yet left open to be decided by the learned Adjudicating Authority, particularly when the Order dated 02.08.2023 was yet to be implemented and the negotiations for fixing the rent in pursuance to the said order is yet to commence. 13. The argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that, some of the findings which have been recorded therein are adverse to his interest, which requires an interference by this Tribunal under its Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016. But, after having heard the learned counsels for the parties and taking into consideration, the directions given in Para 38 of the Impugned Order which is extracted hereunder: ''38. Accordingly, the order in IA(IBC)/1221/2023 is to be interpreted that rent is to be determined by way of negotiations and while doing so, the parties are to take into consideration factors already discussed in arriving at the settlement. It is expected that the Liquidator will play the role of umpire instead of changing the goalpost to resolve the issue. Therefore, there is no merit in the application.'' We ....