TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingh and Ms. Nikita Agrawal i/b. AVS Legal, for Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition. Mr. Rohan Rajyadhayaksha a/w. Mr. Prashant Gawali, Ms. Shreya Mathane and Mr. Gaurav Devdhekar, for Respondent No. 4 in IAL No. 27028 of 2026 and for Respdt.No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2026. ORDER: 1. In pursuance of order dated 01.10.2026, the respondents have filed their reply affidavits. It appears that the reply affidavit of respondent No. 4, although e-filed, is not shared with this Court. The Registry is directed to ensure that a copy of the said reply is placed on record for perusal of this Court on the next date of listing. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court may consider the questions that arise for consideration, including interpretation of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the regulations framed thereunder, but in the interregnum, possession of the subject property may be directed to be handed over to the petitioner, subject to conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of Rs. 25,07,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid questions are decided, the possession ought not to be taken from the Bankruptcy Trustee as on today. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bankruptcy Trustee invited attention of this Court to the documents on record, particularly the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), whereby the application filed by respondent No. 4 for voluntary bankruptcy proceedings was allowed and respondent No. 6 was appointed as the Bankruptcy Trustee. It is submitted that the subsequent events, including orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), would indicate that the act of said respondent No. 6 in taking possession of the subject property on 02.08.2026 was strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are deliberately seeking to mislead this Court by contending that the possession was hurriedly taken on a Sunday. It is emphasized that possession having been taken in accordance with law, the Bankruptcy Trustee is enjoined under the provisions of the IBC and the aforesaid regulations to take further steps in accordance with law, for which retaining possession by the said respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of respondent No. 6, Bankruptcy Trustee, by order dated 24.04.2026. It is also an admitted position that from 02.08.2026 onwards, respondent No. 4 has no longer remained in possession of the subject property. Therefore, we refuse to consider the contentions sought to be raised on behalf of respondent No. 4 on the short issue regarding possession of the subject property. 12. As regards contentions raised on behalf of respondent No. 6, Trustee, we find that the chronology of events in the present case demonstrates a peculiar twist after the order was passed appointing respondent No. 6 as a Bankruptcy Trustee on a proceeding initiated by respondent No. 4 for voluntary bankruptcy. It is to be noted that the said order was passed on 24.04.2026. Respondent No. 4 himself challenged the said order before the NCLAT, and on 11.05.2026, the NCLAT specifically recorded as follows: ORDER This appeal has been filed against order dated 24.04.2026 by which the Adjudicating Authority has allowed application for bankruptcy filed by the Appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the application was directed to be listed on 06.05.2026 and the Appellant has filed an appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of this Court dated 21.07.2026, and the said subsequent events were recorded in the order dated 06.08.2026, it would be appropriate that as between respondent No. 6, Bankruptcy Trustee, and the petitioner who has paid the entire sale consideration amount, as on today, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is directed to be put in possession of the subject property. This would be subject to the result of the writ petition and also specific directions that this Court intends to issue in this order. 16. As regards the effect of Regulation 31 of the aforesaid regulations framed under the IBC and as to whether the petitioner was entitled for exclusion of time periods under Rule 9(4) of the rules framed under the SARFAESI Act, and as to whether the mandatory nature of the said rule would come in the way of extended period being available to the petitioner for depositing the balance sale consideration, the said questions can certainly be decided in accordance with law. Retaining possession by respondent No. 6, Bankruptcy Trustee, today does not appeal to us so long as the interests of all parties, including respondent No. 6, Bankruptcy Trustee, as per his role un....