2025 (6) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial) The present appeal is laid against the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by NCLT Mumbai, in I.A. No. 3958 of 2023 in CP(IB) 4578/MB (herein after would be referred to as CD). In terms of the order now impugned in this appeal, the Adjudicating Authority had directed the appellant to hand over the possession of a certain hotel building that goes by the name 'MB International'. The Facts: 2.1 The facts most relevant for the current purpose are few and are as below: a) The hotel building in question belonged to the CD against which was initiated a CIRP under Section 7. Today the Resolution Plan has been approved. b) Be that as it may on 03.07.2017, the CD had entered a Conduct Agreement with the appellant under which the appellant was g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....based on certain obligations created under the Conducting Agreement. The second application was I.A.4136 of 2023 under Sec.45 and 48 IBC which deal with avoidance of preferential transactions as relating to few transactions of the CD which included the Conducting Agreement in favour of the appellant. e) The appellant resisted I.A.3958 of 2023, and his principal contentions have been that even though the Conducting Agreement was executed on 03.07.2017, possession was handed over to the appellant only in 2021; that the appellant had invested huge sums in the project of running the hotel etc., in terms of the Conducting agreement; and that in terms of Clause 28 of the Conducting Agreement the owner viz., the Corporate Debtor retained to itse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....greement continues. b) Secondly, when the money-claims made originally in I.A.3958 of 2023 as well as the demand for delivery of possession of the hotel property flew directly from the Conducting Agreement, inasmuch as the money claims were given up during hearing, necessarily the prayer for delivery of property should have also been visited with the same effect. c) Even though the Conducting Agreement was penned and inked on 03.07.2017, actual possession was handed over only in 2021. It therefore, leads to a question if the appellant was entitled to be in possession after 02.09.2023. Indeed, the appellant had invested substantial sum in running the hotel business and that needs to be reckoned. The issue therefore, involve a disputed qu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ution process is in occupation after the period during which there was an authorisation to occupy, such person in occupation is liable to be vacated. In the instant case whatever arrangements by which the appellant was in possession of the hotel property has expired by effect of the time on 02.09.2023, during the pendency of CIRP. Eventually the there is no vested rights in the appellant to continue in possession. (Discussion and Decision) 4. The submissions made on either side were carefully weighed. This Tribunal has little difficulty in spotting the fallacy of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. Admittedly the Conducting Agreement was executed on 03.07.2017. And, the CIRP against the CD under whom the appellant claims ri....