09/01/2025

Can the NCLT, under Section 60(5) of the IBC, pass an order for the eviction of tenancy rights in a property of the Corporate Debtor? | Can insolvency laws override statutory tenancy protections? | Whether tenancy disputes fall outside the scope of insolvency resolution? – Sumati Suresh Hegde and Ors. Vs. Anand Sonbhadra, RP of Champalalji Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 29 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) IRP did not pursue the suit for eviction which was a right procedure, rather filed an application under Section 60(5) r/w Section 25(2)(a) of the Code before the Tribunal by short circuiting the route of eviction of the present appellants under the garb of the provisions of the Code.
(ii) The Tribunal has committed a patent error in passing the order of eviction considering the possession of the Appellants as of the lessee.
(iii) There is a sharp difference between the lease and a tenancy.
(iv) In the present case, there has been no change of the tenancy rights of the Appellants by way of a contract and the law which is to operate in respect of termination of tenancy are the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and not the Code.
(v) It is also otherwise well settled that once a tenant always a tenant unless the status changes by contract or by operation of law.
(vi) The Application under Section 60(5) of the IBC is only maintainable if the issue involved is related to insolvency resolution process.

Can the NCLT, under Section 60(5) of the IBC, pass an order for the eviction of tenancy rights in a property of the Corporate Debtor? | Can insolvency laws override statutory tenancy protections? | Whether tenancy disputes fall outside the scope of insolvency resolution? – Sumati Suresh Hegde and Ors. Vs. Anand Sonbhadra, RP of Champalalji Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

In a proceeding before a Court or Tribunal, all necessary parties are to be impleaded, even if, a party is not a necessary party, which may be treated as a proper party | Even if, Directorate of Enforcement was not necessary party in the Appeal filed by the SRA, it would have been appropriate that ED was also heard while deciding the issue – Directorate of Enforcement – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 19 minutes of reading

The Hon’ble NCLAT recalled its order reported in (2024) ibclaw.in 494 NCLAT, on the IA filed by ED. The ED was not a party in the above order. The Hon’ble Bench held that in a proceeding before a Court or Tribunal, all necessary parties are to be impleaded, even if, a party is not a necessary party, which may be treated as a proper party, whose presence may be necessary for deciding the issues, which have come up before the Court or who may have some stake in the issues, which has arisen for adjudication.

In a proceeding before a Court or Tribunal, all necessary parties are to be impleaded, even if, a party is not a necessary party, which may be treated as a proper party | Even if, Directorate of Enforcement was not necessary party in the Appeal filed by the SRA, it would have been appropriate that ED was also heard while deciding the issue – Directorate of Enforcement – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. Kunal Conchem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 2 minutes of reading

In the proceedings settlement agreement dated 23.11.2023 was entered between the parties, relying on which settlement agreement proceedings were closed on 01.12.2023. Subsequently, Restoration Application was filed on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has not honoured the settlement between the parties. The application was opposed by the Corporate Debtor, however, the Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions of the parties, allowed the application and revived Section 9 application.

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. Kunal Conchem Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top