TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench for short, "NCLT", in CP(IB) No. 1377/KB/2020. Thereby, the NCLT had directed delivery of possession of the property in question to the appellants herein. 2. Facts, relevant to this adjudication, need recounting at some length. On 13.02.2019, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by and between Nandini Impex Private Limited, which became a corporate debtor under the IBC thereafter, represented by its Director, Chandrakant Khemka, on the one hand, and Noble Dealcom Private Limited along with Jodhpur Properties and Finance Private Limited, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 herein, on the other hand, whereby Nandini Impex Private Limited availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs.3 crores from them and secured ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for short, "CIRP" against Nandini Impex Private Limited, the corporate debtor. Significantly, UCO Bank was the sole member of its Committee of Creditors for short, "CoC". The appellants, as operational creditors, filed their respective claims before the Interim Resolution Professional appointed for the corporate debtor and the said claims were accepted in toto. At that stage, UCO Bank, constituting the CoC, deputed the Resolution Professional to visit the subject property on the ground floor of White House and decide whether there was any need to retain the same by paying huge rentals. Thereafter, at its meeting held on 06.04.2023, the CoC decided that there was no requirement to hold on to the subject property and requested the Resolution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also recorded that the Resolution Professional did not wish to retain possession of the property in question. 5. Thereafter, on 14.07.2025, upon being informed that a new Resolution Professional was appointed for the corporate debtor, this Court required him to make known his stand by way of a written affidavit. Pursuant thereto, Pratim Bayal, the new Resolution Professional, filed affidavit dated 17.07.2025. Therein, he categorically stated that, given the extremely limited operations of the corporate debtor at present and the extremely high rent of the White House property, it was not feasible and was totally unnecessary for the corporate debtor to continue to hold on to the said property. He, therefore, reiterated the statement made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Professional, by filing separate written submissions. Reference was made therein to the decision of this Court in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and others (2019) 12 SCC 150. Paragraph 52 of the decision reads as follows: 52. As aforesaid, upon receipt of a "rejected" resolution plan the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is not expected to do anything more; but is obligated to initiate liquidation process under Section 33(1) of the I&B Code. The legislature has not endowed the adjudicating authority (NCLT) with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of CoC much less to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the resolution plan by the dissenting financial creditors. From the legislat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority. That is made non-justiciable. The commercial wisdom of the CoC must, accordingly, be given primacy during the CIRP. When UCO Bank, constituting the CoC, decided that retention of the possession of the subject property was not in the interest of the CIRP, that decision must be given the respect that is lawfully due to it. 9. Lastly, we may note that Section 14(1)(d) of the IBC states that once the adjudicating authority, by order, declares a moratorium, it would prohibit, amongst other acts, the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or is in the possession of the corporate debtor. In the case on hand, the chronology of events manifests that, at its very first meeting held on 20.02.2023....