Property In Possession Of Corporate Debtor Sold When Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Was In Consideration Cannot Be Excluded From Assets: NCLAT
Live LawThe NCLAT Chennai bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Jatindranath Swain has held that property that is sold which was in possession of the corporate debtor immediately before the judgment in a petition under section 7 of the IBC was reserved cannot be excluded from the purview of the assets of the corporate debtor. An IA was filed by the appellant in which it was prayed that all the Prospective Resolution Applicants, may be informed that the schedule property belongs to the Appellant, and it is not in possession of the Resolution Professional and that it cannot be made part of any Resolution Plan to be submitted under CIRP proceedings in respect of the Corporate Debtor. NCLAT's Analysis The tribunal noted that the land in dispute which is subject matter of the suit has been, at all stages, the part and parcel of the factory premises and it had been under the ownership of one Mr. Basavraj Ningappa Arekeri, who happens to be the suspended director and shareholder of the Corporate debtor, if this be so the property would fall to be part and parcel of the assets of the Corporate Debtor because as against the mortgage of the said property, the loan facilities were extended. The tribunal further noted that the acquisition of alleged title made by the Appellant from Mr. Chidanand Sangappa Patil on 24.02.2023 in fact is bad in law because the erstwhile owner, the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor, Mr. Basavraj Ningappa Arekeri, had sold the property which was and is in possession of the Corporate Debtor for industrial purposes, to the predecessor seller of the Appellant by a Sale Deed on 23.01.2023 The tribunal noted that all this happened when Section 7 application against the Corporate Debtor was under active consideration and this fact was very well known to the Suspended Director that alienation of Corporate Debtor's assets should not be done in normal course. After noting the facts of the case, the tribunal came to the conclusion that in these circumstances, sale of the said property immediately after the judgment in section 7 application was reserved on 06.02.2023, itself is an avert act, and actions of the Appellant with regard to the aforesaid transaction which is subject matter of the Civil Suit, which has been instituted at his behest together with chronological sequence of transactions in the scheduled land during the pendency of CIRP proceedings shows that the sale was not bonafide.