Other-Land Encroachment Cases

It is always open for Successful Resolution Applicant to seek protection under Section 32A of IBC – Paramjit Gandhi Vs. Ashwini Mehra, Chairman Monitoring Committee of Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Both the applications were filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant seeking directions with regard to encroachment on the land of the Corporate Debtor and consequential implementation of the Resolution Plan. NCLAT held that Section 32A being a statute regarding liability for prior offences, as and when such occasion arises, it is always open for the Appellant to seek protection under Section 32A in accordance with law.

It is always open for Successful Resolution Applicant to seek protection under Section 32A of IBC – Paramjit Gandhi Vs. Ashwini Mehra, Chairman Monitoring Committee of Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

It is for intending purchaser to satisfy himself in all respects as to the title and encumbrances and so forth of the immovable property that he proposes to purchase – Mr. Paramjit Gandhi Vs. Mr. Ashwini Mehra, Chairman, Monitoring Committee, Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

The Adjudicating Authority held that in the case at hand, when informed about the encroachment on the properties by the Successful Resolution Applicant, the Monitoring Committee consciously refused to write letters to the Revenue Authorities to prevent such encroachment there by abetting an act which will greatly diminish the value of the assets of the corporate debtor. In the course of the present proceedings, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the RP and subsequently the Monitoring Committee took any step to protect the property of the Corporate Debtor from encroachment. It is observed that the official liquidator cannot and does not hold any guarantee or warranty in respect of the property sold. That is because the official liquidator proceeds on the basis of what the records of the company in liquidation show. Thus, it is for the intending purchaser to satisfy himself in all respects as to the title and encumbrances and so forth of the immovable property that he proposes to purchase.

It is for intending purchaser to satisfy himself in all respects as to the title and encumbrances and so forth of the immovable property that he proposes to purchase – Mr. Paramjit Gandhi Vs. Mr. Ashwini Mehra, Chairman, Monitoring Committee, Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

A Corporate Debtor (In CIRP) is holding the development right on land has not been terminated before the commencement of CIRP, Section 14 of the Code is applicable till it reaches the stage of approval of Resolution Plan or Liquidation – Victory Iron Works Limited Vs. Jitendra Lohia Resolution Professional of Avani Towers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

There are certain facts which are very clear from the deliberation of submissions including the pleadings by the parties that M/s. Energy Properties Pvt ltd is the owner of the property and the Corporate Debtor (in CIRP) is a Developer of the Property in terms of the Development Agreement dated 16.06.2008 and they will be governed by inter – se Here the Adjudicating Authority has not gone into the issue of ownership of the property, he has restricted its role as provided in Section 14 of the Code vide Section 14(1)(d) including its explanations. It is also undisputed fact that the Corporate Debtor (In CIRP) is holding the development right and the Development Agreement dated 16.06.2008 has not been terminated before the commencement of CIRP. In all such situations Section 14 of the Code is applicable till it reaches the stage of approval of Resolution Plan or Liquidation. However, the RP is to appropriately disclose the status of the Property in the Information Memorandum and other documents as required in the CIRP Regulations, 2016.(p15)

A Corporate Debtor (In CIRP) is holding the development right on land has not been terminated before the commencement of CIRP, Section 14 of the Code is applicable till it reaches the stage of approval of Resolution Plan or Liquidation – Victory Iron Works Limited Vs. Jitendra Lohia Resolution Professional of Avani Towers Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top