By the impugned order, the appellant/Sicom Ltd was directed by NCLT to transfer Igatpuri Unit to the nominee of the Resolution Applicant M/s Kitply Industries Ltd within 45 (forty five) days.
NCLAT observed that till date the Corporate Debtor is not title holder of the property in question and dispute comes around the execution of the sale deed. It is admitted that dispute regarding either payment of remaining consideration amount as per sale agreement or non-execution of sale deed arose much much before initiation of CIRP in the present proceeding and as such neither RP nor NCLT was having any jurisdiction to deal with such property. We may observe that even in the resolution plan it was indicated that dispute in respect of the property in question was existing which is evident from communication dated 02.06.2019. NCLT has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appellant to transfer the property in question in favour of Corporate Debtor. The dispute whether agreement to sale which was entered in between the parties in the year 1998 was breached by the appellant or the respondent breached the agreement, may not be examined in a proceeding under the IBC. Such disputes are required to be examined by the court of competent jurisdiction. In view of admitted position that title of the property in respect of Igatpuri Unit still lies with the appellant, the Learned NCLT has committed error in allowing the application filed on behalf of the Respondent in directing for transferring the land in question and as such there is no option but to set aside the impugned order.