TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.256/2022 1. These are the two Company Appeals preferred by the Appellant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, whereby they put a challenge to the Impugned Order dated 24th March 2021, as it has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority in MA No.49/CHE/2020 in IBA/1075/2019, which is the subject matter of consideration in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.255 of 2022. 2. In the connected Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.256 of 2022 the challenge has been given by the Appellant to the Impugned Order dated 24th March 2021 as it was passed by the Adjudicating Authority in MA/49/CHE/2020 in IBA/1075/2019. 3. On account of the fact that in both the Company Appeals sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tially a Lease Agreement was executed between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor as back as on 20th July 2009, for the purpose of permitting to occupy the property, that is the tenement shed which was supposed to be utilised exclusively for industrial purposes. Apparently, the Lease Deed was initially for a period of 24 months subject to its further renewal and which was even renewed from time to time until it ultimately got expired on 31st January 2018. 6. Admittedly, after the expiry of the period of Lease Deed on 31st of January 2018, it was never renewed and as a consequence of the non-renewal of the Lease Deed, as the appellant occupancy was in the capacity of being a tenant in terms of the Lease deed, the appellant legally lose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any lease subsisting lease executed beyond the period of 8 years. 8. Thus, in both the cases since the lease being in violation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, the said cannot be utilised as to be creating any subsisting legal right in favour of the appellant which would be enforced because the Lease deed could not have been read in evidence in judicial proceedings in favour of the Appellant, as evidence in support of its contention so as to protect the occupancy for which he (the Appellant) has been directed to be evicted, by the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, due to non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the earlier Order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 5th March 2021, consequently allowing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating Authority while passing the Impugned Order, it was to the effect that there was no justification for the Appellant to continue to occupy the premises, which would be property in CIRP proceedings for the reason being that, the appellant was provided with an opportunity by an order of 5th March 2021 to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs into the Bank account of the Corporate Debtor, but the said order was not complied, with within the cut off time period which was prescribed by the order dated 5th March 2021. Owing to the said opportunity which was granted by the Adjudicating Authority by the order of 5th March 2021 was not availed, the Appellant for all practical purposes loses his rights to continue to occupy the premises in relation to a prop....