TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose to explain why I disagree with them. 2. To outline briefly, the present appeal arises out of the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in IA No. 2658 of 2021, filed by the liquidator under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code in C.P. (I.B.) No. 2392/MB/2019, by which an easement of way by prescription through the property of the appellant has come to be declared. Other relevant facts are: a) The Corporate Debtor, Adya Oils and Chemicals Ltd., is the owner of non-agricultural land in New Block No. 83 (Old Block No. 87) situated at village Manglej, Taluk Karjan, District Vadodara, Gujarat. The said land was purchased for the purpose of establishing an industrial unit for manufacturing castor oil. b) The first appellant is the owner of adjacent lands bearing Block Nos. 90 and 92 (Old Block Nos. 94 and 96), which it had purchased in July, 2007 from Jord Engineers India Limited, for the purpose of carrying out certain industrial activities. Construction activity on Plot No. 90 commenced around March-April 2018, and industrial operations began in October 2019. Of the two plots, Plot No. 92 remains vacant. c) As stated e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diction to entertain the plea founded on Sec. 15 of the Easement Act. 3. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed prayers (b) to (h) of IA No. 2658 of 2021, including directions for removal of obstruction, protection of right of way, incorporation of access in land records, and assistance by local authorities. Prayer (a) was held to be infructuous as the wall had already been demolished. Its line of reasoning is that: it has authority under Sec. 60(5)(c) of the Code, since the obstruction to the pathway will have the effect of affecting the value of the liquidation asset; that the ingredients of Sec. 15 of the Easement Act exist; and that the Non-Agricultural Order dated 04.11.1999 has recognised the right to exercise a right of way over the property of the appellant. This is now challenged in this appeal. Arguments 4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued: a) that the Adjudicating Authority has egregiously erred in exceeding its jurisdiction since (i) dispute concerning the existence of easementary right goes far beyond the extent of authority which the Adjudicating Authority is vested with. (ii) the dispute pertaining to easementary right requires extensiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was legally estopped from re-agitating the same issue before the Adjudicating Authority. g) With respect to allegations concerning related-party relationships, it is submitted that mere familial proximity between promoters of different entities cannot justify coercing a distinct legal entity to part with its proprietary rights. The Appellants and the corporate debtor are separate juristic persons, and such allegations cannot substitute legal proof of easementary rights. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent argued: a) that the dispute has a direct nexus with the liquidation proceedings, since the obstruction to the only access to the Corporate Debtor's property materially affects its saleability and value. Any dispute that arises out of or relating to insolvency is required to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings. Reliance was placed on Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs Amit Gupta [(2021) 7 SCC 209]. Therefore, driving the Liquidator to a civil suit would unnecessarily delay the liquidation process and prejudice the interests of creditors and stakeholders. b) that the Corporate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... knowledge about the liquidation-asset prior to these dates. 8. Now the case of the liquidator be considered. She claims (i) an easementary right of pathway over the property of the appellant for accessing the liquidation asset; (ii) secondly and, perhaps in the alternative or as an aspect of principal contention (there is no clarity on this) claims that vide a proceeding of the Taluka Panchayat dated 04.11.1999, a right of way through the property of the appellant has been given. The appellant refutes any such right of way through his property. 9. To understand easementary rights in this country, one should have intimate acquaintance with the Easement Act, 1882. They, by their very nature are deceptively complex and they mercilessly reject any pretentious familiarity while dealing with them. It is therefore, considered necessary to introduce them without reference to few technical terms which the Easement Act uses: a) First to the definition of easement under Sec. 4 of the Easement Act. An easement is a right exercised over the immovable property of one person for the beneficial enjoyment of another immovable property. In this case, the liquidator claims right of wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerned with one specific specie of prescriptive easement: the right of way. Sec. 15 reads: "Sec. 15. Acquisition by prescription.-Where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where support from one person's land or things affixed thereto has been peaceably received by another person's land subjected to artificial pressure or by things affixed thereto as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where a right of way or any other easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such access and use of light or air, support or other easement shall be absolute. Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested. Explanation I.-Nothing is an enjoyment within the meaning of this section when it has been had in pursuance of an agreement with the owner or o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question from the National Highway from the Block No:94,96 (new 90, 92) this permission is granted as per the rule and regulation subject to the strict compliance of the undertaking given for the entry by making the Agreement on 20.09.1999 on a stamp of Rs.20-00, and subject to obtaining the permission of the government as per the rules for the entry in the Government Nel (Narrow way)" Conceptually, both claim of prescriptive right of way under Sec. 15 and right of way through a proceeding of the Panchayat such as the one referred to above cannot co-exist, unless it has the force of a decree of a civil court. While the above extracted portion of the Order refers to certain rules and regulations, they were not reproduced in the Order and hence its binding nature is not known. In effect the legal sanctity of the said proceeding and how far it may bind the appellant is not made evident. More significantly it does not show that the predecessor in title of the appellant had been heard. 13. Next aspect is, is the liquidation-asset land-locked? And, is the way which the liquidator asserts over the appellant's property the only way to access it? This can be now explained through a G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so be it, for law understands, recognises and respects only the rights of individuals and does not unconcern itself about relationships. For instance, it recognises spousal relationship, but it still treats the rights of the spouses only as individuals. Turning to this case, assuming that statement that the promotor of the corporate debtor was using a specific portion of appellant's property to access the property of the corporate debtor is presumed to be true, there is always a possibility that it could be permissive as it is not unknown in this country for people to make concessions due to personal relationships, which creates non-binding commitment. This, Sec. 52^2 of the very Easement Act terms it as a license, terminable at the will of the licensor. Secondly, under the scheme of the Code, it does not equate a related party under Sec. 29A of the Code with the personal relationship an individual may have with the suspended director of the corporate debtor. 16. Where a liquidator asserts the existence of an easementary right of way by prescription over the land of the appellant, and when the appellant denies its existence, the burden is on the liquidator to establish it, for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction merely because it comforts the authority of the tribunals. 18. Moving further, how has the liquidator fared? a) First, the location of the pathway and its dimension. The liquidator has not even indicated it. The plan in colour shown in paragraph 13 may be referred to. It shows that the properties of the appellant and the corporate debtor appear as an imperfect piece of a jig-saw puzzle, one below the other, with two specific points of contact. Both the lines where the properties of both meet apparently has a substantial length. The liquidator has not indicated where in this dividing line the pathway she asserts runs and what its dimensions are. Mere attempt to show a pathway with an arrow will not suffice. It will amuse a court familiar with the working of the Easement Act. b) Thirdly, the liquidator has to prove that such an easementary right was exercised uninterruptedly for any duration more than 20 years. But here is a liquidator whose knowledge about the liquidation-asset in question and how it was enjoyed commences either from September, 2019 or March, 2020, depending on when she was appointed, and that it could be no more than a year or so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttedly is not a stakeholder in the liquidation process and whose property is not part of the liquidation asset. Who will care for his right? And who can consider his right? How competent this tribunal is to deal with these issues? Does the liquidator want this tribunal to decide on the existence of an easementary right that she claims without referring to the Easement Act? It appears so, but no judicial mind trained in civil law will allow its conscience to be consumed by any such grand misconception. 21. Indeed, what is disturbing is that when the liquidator had approached the Gram Panchayat with its application dated 09.09.2021, seeking right of way over the appellant's property, the Gram Panchayat had advised her to approach the civil court, which to me is a right advice but may not be from an expert in civil law. But it is ignored. Knowing the waning importance given to civil law and its inability to establish itself as a super specialty branch due to the sustained neglect of ignorant intelligentsia, it may not be hazardous to guess that there may not be too many competent civil lawyers around to advise her. It is time for those who assume responsibility for the legal system....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Sec. 60(5) because securing a clear title may maximise the value of liquidation-asset, and can it be entertained by the tribunal merely because filing a suit before the civil court will be laborious and time consuming? And, if the other co-sharers of such promotor-co-sharer resist any attempt of the liquidator to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal in defending their individual civil right involved in partitioning a property, can it be termed malafide? Qua vadis justice then be in this country? c) There can be another situation where a corporate debtor shows a vacant plot of land as its asset, but a third-party disputes the title of the corporate debtor and claims a title in himself over the same property. Can the disputed-title be decided by the tribunal merely because one of the parties to the dispute, namely the corporate debtor, shows the property as its own in its books? Can the tribunal construct title documents without a trial and decide the issue because IBC has a set a time line. d) Then there are disputes that arise out of a pre-existing and undisputed legal relationship between the corporate debtor and a third party. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to approach the Enforcement Directorate, or the tribunals constituted under the PMLA. 25. The liquidator should remember that statutes may vary, rights they create may vary, but the legal system in this country treats every right of every citizen equally. This tribunal, even as it administers the IBC, cannot insult this Constitutional philosophy merely because the Code has set the completion of the insolvency resolution process on an urgency mode. After all, the Code does not advocate that a corporate debtor be resurrected, come what may, even if it is with the blood of the third-party rights. Right to property of every nature, kind, variety and width is a Constitutionally protected right under Article 300 A of the Constitution and it cannot be meddled with by the Code. Parliament has laid the highway for legislations to travel, and also has earmarked the lane in which every statute that it has passed shall operate. Lane-crossing is prohibited in legislative operations, unless it is enabled. In the context of IBC lane crossing is enabled to a limited extent in Sec. 238 of the Code, but it is restricted only to those legislations which overlap with the insolvency resolution proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls and Chemicals Ltd., owns and operates an industrial unit at New Block No. 83 (Old Block No. 87), Village Manglej, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara, Gujarat. Access to this unit from the National Highway has, since 1999, been through New Block Nos. 90 and 92 (Old Block Nos. 94 and 96), presently owned by the Appellants. 4. The origin of this access is traceable to the Non-Agricultural (N.A.) permission bearing No. N.A.S.R./2/99/99-2000/Land Vashi/1466/99 dated 04.11.1999 ("NA Order") granted by the Taluka Panchayat Kacheri, Karjan, permitting construction for industrial purposes on the Corporate Debtor's land. The NA Order, granted after obtaining reports/clearances from no fewer than thirteen concerned authorities (Executive Engineer, National Highway Department; Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna; Deputy Collector; Chief District Health Officer; Deputy Town Planner; Collector, Vadodara under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act, and others), expressly records that entry to the land in question was to be secured from the National Highway through Block No. 94/96, subject to an undertaking executed on a stamp paper dated 20.09.1999. This right of way was never under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdictional error. The Hon'ble NCLT travelled beyond the statutory powers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by purporting to confer easement rights in favour of the Corporate Debtor, Adya Oils and Chemicals Ltd., over two parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 90 and 92, which are owned by Appellant. Such easement rights were erroneously granted in terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, pursuant to an application filed by Respondent No.1/Liquidator under Section 60(5) of the IBC per IA No. 2658 of 2021 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 292 of 2025. 10. NCLT was not entitled in law to grant to pass a direction under Section 65 in respect of a civil matter governed by the Indian Easement Act, 1882. 11. The proceedings before NCLT/NCLAT are summary proceedings. The NCLT cannot decide disputed issues, which are predominantly civil in nature and is a matter of trial. 12. The property in question viz. the Plots of the Appellants were not the property of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the application filed by the Liquidator for the alleged easement rights under Section 60(5)(c), IBC was not maintainable. Reliance is placed on ^5Gujarat Urja Vik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Debtor had an alternate route. A limited affidavit in this respect challenging the jurisdiction of NCLT was filed (page no. 196/200 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 292/2025). A further affidavit was also filed by the Appellant No.1 challenging the jurisdiction and also bringing into the notice of the court that the reliance upon an order dated 04.11.1999 (page no. 116 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 292 of 2025) of Taluka Panchayat Kacheri for creating a right of easement was unfounded as there was no undertaking on record (page no. 207/210 in Vol II in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 292/2025). Anyhow, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority does not have the mandate under IBC to pass any order for providing the Easement Rights. It did not contain an undertaking/right of way by the Appellants. 16. Reliance upon the judgment 7Swiss Ribbon is ill-founded since maximization of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor does not imply grabbing the rights and properties of third parties as has been done in the case. 17. Appellant No.1 is the owner of the plot in question for over 18 years having purchased the plots in 2007 and has never granted any right of way to the Liquidator o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attempted filing application before the NCLT which was erroneously admitted. 25. It is contended that the Respondent' land was not land-locked and had a right to way. However, as understood by the submissions made by the Respondents, two/three plots of land out of the total block are not currently in the hands off the Corporate Debtor. It is stated that if the Respondent for whatever reasons is not having the control on the assets, it cannot compel or coerce a third party to provide a right of way. Anyhow, the right of way, if at all, is to be established through the Civil Court and IBC being a summary proceedings and being created under the specific statute, the Respondent could not claim and the NCLT could not have granted the Right of Way to the Respondent only with the objective of enhancing the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor at the stake of the third party. 26. It is also pertinent to mention that as regards, the issue pertaining to the promoters of the Respondent being the relatives of the promoters of the appellant, it is most that simply being close family/relatives do not result in a situation whereby a third-party relative can be coerced to give a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter CIRP and Liquidation commenced and during Covid-19 and later also demolished the wall. There is no explanation for the timing of such construction and blockages to access the Subject Property thereafter, except a vague reference to prevent pigs from entering. 33. In the present case, the very origin of the dispute is to unfairly influence the liquidation proceedings by family members of the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor. The dispute thus arises out of and is in relation to the liquidation proceedings and the actions of the Appellants materially impacts the value of the asset (Subject Property) of the Corporate Debtor thus impinging on the objective of maximization of the value as mandated in the preamble of the Code. The motive of the Appellants was to ensure that the Subject Property is landlocked such that no one comes ahead to purchase the same, and the value is brought down so that the same may be purchased by the erstwhile promoters or their nominees. 34. The Respondent No.1 has filed the maps as of 2020 and 2025 vide their I.A. No. 6654 of 2025 showing how the access has been blocked by the Appellants, and it is undisputed that the access which was previously av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after the access was blocked, and the Respondent No.1 humbly submits that while the access was blocked during the Covid 19 pandemic, the auction notice was published on 10.01.2024 and the auction was conducted on 08.02.2024. 40. The contention of the Appellants that the Corporate Debtor can have access to the Subject Property through New Block No. 77 and 79 (Old Block No. 81 and 83 respectively) is liable to be rejected since: a. In the Map filed by the Appellants, the numbers written in red ink denotes New Block Number, while the numbers written in blue ink denotes Old Block Number. b. The New Block No. 82 (Old Block No. 86) which is in-between the Subject Property (New Block No.83 and Old Block No.87) and the New Block No. 77 and 79 (Old Block No. 81 and 83 respectively) belongs to a third party by the name Arjun Solanki. Thus, even if there is access (through the green pathway) to New Block No. 77 and 79 (Old Block No. 81 and 83 respectively) there is a land belonging to a third party, cutting of access in-between, which is not in the control of the Liquidator. c. Further, the dispute has arisen due to the sudden action post CIRP/liquidation of bloc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Debtor's (CDs) assets during the liquidation process. 44. The Adjudicating Authority had allowed the appeal. Adjudicating Authority has provided the relief with following directions: "...Findings- 1. In view of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel of both the parties and on the strength of documents and pleadings placed on record, it is evident that the Applicant, being the Liquidator of Adya Oils and Chemicals Ltd., is seeking directions against the Respondents concerning the right of way to New Block No. 83, which is essential for maximizing the value of the Corporate Debtor's assets during the liquidation process. However, the case of the Respondent is that the instant Application, filed by the Applicant, is not maintainable under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC as the cause of the present Application does not have any nexus to the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that this Hon'ble Tribunal, vide Order dated 13.02.2024, proceeded ex-parte against Respondent No. 1,2,3, and 4 and forfeited their right to file a reply to the present Application. 2. On perusal of the reply submitted by Respondent No. 5 and 6 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vorced of such grant of easement by the earlier owner just because the Respondent No. 5 has not granted any specific easement right to the Applicant. Thus, it is established that Respondent No. 5 stepped into the shoes of the earlier owner, and the Easement right in favour of the Corporate Debtor extend to Respondent No. 5. 6. Moreover, the nexus between the Respondents and the Corporate Debtor's promoters as related parties raises serious concerns about the intention behind the said obstruction. The timing of the wall construction and subsequent attempts to block access suggest a calculated effort to devalue the Corporate Debtor's assets. 7. While the Respondents have raised jurisdictional objections, this Tribunal finds that the matter falls squarely within its jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code. The obstruction directly impacts the liquidation process by: a) Impeding the Liquidator's ability to maximize asset value b) Interfering with the sale process c) Creating artificial barriers to potential buyers 8. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Embassy Property Development (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka^6 which holds that the resolution professional "cannot short-circuit" proceedings in which the CD must assert rights and "bring a claim before NCLT taking advantage of Section 60(5)". The appellant also contends that the summary proceedings cannot try a right that needs evidence. 47. Vehemently opposing the arguments of the appellants, the liquidator claims that the Gujarat Urja^5 para 71 supplies the operative logic. In Gujarat Urja^5 the PPA was terminated solely because of insolvency, so the dispute arose solely from it. Here in the present case, but for the insolvency the Appellants would not have blocked the access - the wall came only after CIRP/liquidation, from those parties whose shareholders are the promoters' relatives, and this action is timed to depress the auction value so the property returns to the promoters' nominees. Section 60(5)(c) expressly provides for jurisdiction to NCLT to entertain or dispose of any "questions of fact". Respondent contends that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is single-forum design and for this purpose it places its reliance on Innoventive^7 (para 13); ArcelorMittal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved that: (SCC p. 422, para 13) "13. One of the important objectives of the Code is to bring the insolvency law in India under a single unified umbrella with the object of speeding up of the insolvency process." The principle was reiterated in Arcelor Mittal [ArcelorMittal (India) (P) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2019) 2 SCC 1] where this Court held that: (SCC p. 88, para 84) "84. ... The non obstante clause in Section 60(5) is designed for a different purpose: to ensure that NCLT alone has jurisdiction when it comes to applications and proceedings by or against a corporate debtor covered by the Code, making it clear that no other forum has jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of such applications or proceedings." Therefore, considering the text of Section 60(5)(c) and the interpretation of similar provisions in other insolvency related statutes, NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes, which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the corporate debtor. However, in doing so, we issue a note of caution to NCLT and NCLAT to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and fora when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Adya Oils and Chemicals Ltd. (now in liquidation) which clearly states: ".... (12) Since, the road for the getting entry in the land in question from the National Highway from the Block No.9496 this permission is granted as per the rule and regulation subject to the strict compliance of the undertaking given for the entry by making the Agreement on 20/9/99 on a stamp of Rs.20-00, and, subject to obtaining the permission of the Government as per the rules for the entry in the Government Nel (Narrow way way)." 52. We further note this order was issued on the basis of reports of all concerned who were officially involved in granting NA^9 permission for carrying out construction for the industrial purpose on the said land of the CD. It will be instructive to note that many stakeholders were involved for grant of permission and that could be appreciated from the following list: "(1) The demand was made on 27/8/99 by Adya Oils and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara for N.A. permission for the Industrial purpose (Castor Oil Products) in respect of the land having total area of 12545 sq. meters of Block No.87 of village Manglej, Ta. Karjan, the acknowledgement of whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s but till date have not got any relief. Liquidator thereafter, approached Adjudicating Authority. The liquidator has relied on his right of way which was enjoyed by the Corporate Debtor since 1999 as an easement right by prescription and that to without any interruption. The liquidator has relied on relevant provisions of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 to support Corporate Debtor's case. Liquidator also relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in ^10Gopalbhai Jikabhai Suvagiya, wherein the seven ingredients of an easement right have been laid down and the Liquidator claims that Corporate Debtor fulfils all the said ingredients in the instant case. Section 15 of the Easement Act, 1882 provides a right of way of easement once a person enjoys it for a period of 20 years then the right cannot be restricted and should be available permanently. In this case, right of way by was determined by revenue authority in 1999 and CD continued to enjoy without interpretation till the Corporate Debtor was to be put into liquidation. It is apparent that the attempts of the owners of Block No. 90 and 92 within an ulterior motive are deliberately creating obstructions so that value of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r can have access to the Subject Property through New Block No. 77 and 79 (Old Block No. 81 and 83 respectively). It is brought to our notice by the liquidator that the New Block No. 82 (Old Block No. 86) which is in-between the Subject Property (New Block No.83 and Old Block No.87) and the New Block No. 77 and 79 (Old Block No. 81 and 83 respectively) belongs to a third party by the name Arjun Solanki. Thus, even if there is access (through the green pathway) to New Block No. 77 and 79 (Old Block No. 81 and 83 respectively) there is a land belonging to a third party, cutting of access in-between, which is not in the control of the Liquidator. Further, the liquidator brings to our notice that the dispute has arisen due to the sudden action post CIRP/liquidation of blocking the access enjoyed by the Corporate Debtor to the Subject Property through New Block No. 90 and 92 (Old Block No. 94 and 96). 61. It is also brought to our notice that after filing of police complaint against the said construction, the wall was demolished. However, the area leading to the gate of the Corporate Debtor was filled with mud in such manner that portion outside the gate of the unit was raised leadin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants' principal ground of challenge is jurisdictional. Reliance is placed on Gujarat Urja, but the ratio of that decision, properly understood, defeats rather than supports the Appellants' case. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not hold that every dispute bearing civil characteristics is excluded from Section 60(5)(c); it held that NCLT has jurisdiction over disputes which "arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the corporate debtor," the touchstone being the existence of a nexus with the insolvency/liquidation process. Similarly, in Embassy Property Developments2 (supra), it was clarified that jurisdiction under Section 60(5) is ousted only where the Resolution Professional/Liquidator seeks to exercise, in place of the corporate debtor, a right that must necessarily be agitated before another judicial or quasi-judicial forum having exclusive statutory jurisdiction over the subject matter (e.g., renewal of a mining lease before a State Government). The present case is materially different from Embassy Property2. No exclusive statutory forum has been shown to exist for adjudication of a right of way that is integral to accessing and realising the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artments/officers, including the Executive Engineer, National Highway Department, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada Yojna), the Deputy Collector, the Collector (under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act) and the Deputy Town Planner. It records, in terms, that entry to the land in question was to be secured from the National Highway through the adjoining block, subject to compliance of an undertaking executed on stamp paper. This is a solemn statutory permission, not a private arrangement capable of being disowned by a subsequent purchaser who took the servient land with full constructive notice of the recorded user. 68. Furthermore, the Appellants have not been able to point to a single instance, between 1999 and the initiation of CIRP in 2019 - a period of about twenty years prescribed under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 - in which the Corporate Debtor's use of the access through Block Nos. 90/92 was objected to, obstructed, or otherwise disturbed. Even after the Appellants' own purchase of the servient blocks in 2007, the access continued unhindered for over a decade. Continuous, open, peaceable enjoyment as of right, without interruption, for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rests on an altogether different standard and body of proof. The submission of estoppel is accordingly rejected. 72. Finally, the timing and surrounding circumstances of the obstruction cannot be viewed in isolation. It is undisputed that: (a) the wall blocking access was raised only after commencement of CIRP, during the Covid-19 period; (b) even after its demolition pursuant to the police complaint, the approach to the gate was filled and raised so as to substantially impair, if not completely deny, practical access; (c) this occurred shortly before the scheduled e-auction of the Corporate Debtor's other blocks; and (d) the promoters/directors of both Appellant companies are, on the Liquidator's uncontroverted averment based on MCA records, related parties of the erstwhile promoters of the Corporate Debtor. Taken cumulatively, these facts justify the inference drawn by the Adjudicating Authority, and reiterated before us, that the obstruction was not a bona fide exercise of proprietary rights but a calculated attempt to render the Subject Property landlocked, depress its market value, deter genuine bidders, and facilitate its eventual acquisition by or on behalf of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nificantly delay and prejudice the auction sale" and reward the obstructor. The route via Blocks 77/79 as suggested by the Appellants is cut by third-party Block 82 (Arjun Singh Solanki), so its use "would expose the Applicant to trespass claims" and "is not recognized in the original NA Order". 75. Thus we conclude that the application filed by Respondent No.1/Liquidator under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code was maintainable, the obstruction of the right of way was having a direct nexus with the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and the Liquidator's duty to maximise asset value. Further, the Corporate Debtor is found to possess a subsisting right of way. The obstruction created by the Appellants on a subsisting right of way traceable to the N.A. Order dated 04.11.1999 is found to be a deliberate and mala fide attempt, timed to coincide with the CIRP/liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and its scheduled asset sale, to devalue the Subject Property to the detriment of the creditors and stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No.2658 of 2021 in C.P.(IB) No.2392/MB/2019 does not warrant any inter....