TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor seeking recall of the judgement and order dated 17.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1262/2026 whereby an order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT in IA No.2044/2026 was set aside in so far as it directed Respondent No.1 to deposit the balance resolution amount of Rs. 14,60,56,036/-within 45 days with interest at 12% per annum and it also held any additional time required in vacation of the property bearing number SP-2, RIICO Industrial Area, Kilkipura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur shall stand excluded from the implementation period of the approved resolution plan. The order dated 17.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal is challenged on the ground it was passed at the back of the applicant who was also a stakeholder and whose opposition was recorded in the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 while dismissing his IA No.2336/2026 on the ground he was neither impleaded nor served in the appeal and the appeal proceeded, in substance, without contest. It is submitted the relief granted herein was included in the reliefs and concessions of the plan approval order but it was never granted by the Ld. NCLT and the judgement passed by this Tribunal rather modified the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porate Debtor, including but not limited to the land situated at SP-2, RIICO Industrial Area, Kilkipura; Shivdaspura, Jaipur, which is currently under the possession of any lessee, licensee, or third party, is handed over to the Resolution Applicant or the Corporate Debtor (as the case may be) free from any encumbrances, claims, or occupation. They shall take all necessary steps, including eviction or cancellation of any existing arrangements, to facilitate such peaceful possession upon approval of this Resolution Plan by the COC. The RP shall take necessary steps to vacate the leased premise and that peaceful possession of vacated premises shall be given to the SRA. And in case there is a delay in vacation then the RP shall take necessary legal action for expediting such vacation. In the course of such delay if there is any rent accrued then it shall be a pass-through amount to the Secured Financial Creditor and further if the property is not vacated upto approval of plan by the AA then any additional time period/ delay in vacation of such property after the order of the NCLT' shall be excluded from the Implementation period of the Resolution plan and the Implementati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) and Abhilash Lal (Supra) or specific provisions of the Code read with the Regulations, shall be deemed to be denied or rejected. 7. It was argued no extension was granted to the Successful Resolution Applicant to make the balance payment till the time the property was vacated and he knew the condition to make payment within 90 days was unconditional and the plan was a time bound plan and the Successful Resolution Applicant had no money and hence moved an application alleging the property be handed over first but there was no such condition in the resolution plan to grant any such concession or relief. 8. To support his submissions, reference was also made to following paras of the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 as under: - 11. It is further stated that, in the 2nd meeting of the Monitoring Committee held on 27.03.2026, the Chairman updated on handover of possession and progress of plan implementation, but noted that the erstwhile RP continued to hold possession of B-5 Bapi and around 1.000 sq. m. out of 14.028 sq. m. of SP-2 Jaipur along with all plant and machinery, while 4,028 sq. m. of SP-2 had been let to Countertops and Cabinet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtops and Cabinets India Pvt. Ltd, and clause 7 only requires handing over the Possession of assets of the corporate debtor on payment of upfront amount, but does not contain any stipulation for deferment in payment schedule in case this obligation to hand over is not met. 18 xxxxxx This tribunal in the para 28.1 of its order dated 23.02.2026 passed in IA (Plan) 120 of 2025 has clearly stated that "The Corporate Debtor's rights as well as rights of tenant in relation to property occupied by tenant, the subject matter of IA 5313/2025, shall be subject to the decision of this Tribunal in the said IA". Accordingly, even if any exclusion is contemplated in Para 14 of the Schedule 5 under Reliefs and concessions, the same having not been specifically granted by this Tribunal in para 28 of its Order, stand rejected and cannot be read any longer. 19. Further, this tribunal at para 28.m clarified that any relief, concession or waiver, not specifically dealt with in the said order shall be deemed to be denied or rejected. Indubitably, the applicant, herein, has proceeded to implement the resolution plan approved in terms of said order, hence the terms of approval as contai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obligation to pay the amount within 90 days dehors possession of the property in occupation of M/s Counrter Top India Pvt. Ltd., hence, the contention of the applicant that the balance money was payable after handing over the possession of property in occupation of M/s Counrter Top India Pvt. Ltd. is incorrect and misleading. 9. On the other hand the Learned senior counsel for the Respondent argued on the locus of the applicant stating inter alia the applicant has no right to be heard on an application for recall since he is a suspended director/personal guarantor of the corporate debtor and is not a necessary or proper party in the proceedings concerning implementation of an already approved plan. It was argued the subject property is rather in possession of the family members of the applicant and hence he is more interested in delaying the matter and is finding technicalities to extend the date of handing over of the possession of the subject property on the one hand and is creating obstructions in implementation and is insisting on the Successful Resolution Applicant to make payment of Rs. 18 crores, without an inch of the subject property in his possession. 10. Heard. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellow: Counter Tops (supra) Shareholder Relationship to B.D. Agarwal Shareholding in Countertops & Cabinets (India) Pvt. Ltd. Samradh Bansidhar Agarwal Son (Director/Promoter of Countertops) 50% (5,000 shares of Rs. 10 each) Sangeeta Bansidhar Agarwal (Wife of BD Agarwal) 49% (4,900 shares of Rs. 10 each) Bansidhar (B.D.) Agarwal Applicant himself/erstwhile promoter of the Corporate Debtor 1% (100 shares of Rs. 10 each) Total 100% 16. It is pertinent to mention the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench vide the Order dated 11.03.2024 has observed that Mr. B.D. Agarwal was never a director of the Corporate Debtor. 17. Now on 03.05.2024 the corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP. Section 14 of IBC came into force on 20.11.2024. As per the Information Memorandum, the Resolution Professional secured possession of the subject property but with the approval of the CoC granted a short term lease of only 4028 sq. mtrs out of 14028 sq. mtrs viz a part of the property to M/s Countertops at the market rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. The balance property continued to be in possession of the Resolution Professional. On 29t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Committee's own deliberations dated 26.05.2026, where the Monitoring Committee expressly acknowledged the delay in fulfilment of obligations on the part of the Resolution Professional /CoC in handing over possession after timely payment and recorded any extension/exclusion of time would follow the Plan's own terms, without insisting on interest. 20. The exclusion of time granted on 17.07.2026 was made precisely because the Subject Property (which was not under any valid tenancy) and despite the Successful Resolution Applicant having promptly paid the entire upfront amount, could not be handed over due to the continued and unauthorized occupation by M/s Countertops; infact by applicant's own family. 21. Hence the Applicant cannot now contend the Successful Resolution Applicant should be made liable for interest. In effect, the Applicant seeks to penalise the Successful Resolution Applicant for a delay arising from the continued occupation by a company, owned and controlled by the Applicant and his immediate family. 22. The sole financial creditor was represented in Appeal No. 1262/2026 and did not oppose the appeal. B.D. Agarwal, the applicant cannot assert a super....