TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 that where the Corporate Debtor has ownership right over the premises, the premises can be taken in control by IRP/.RP. This Hon ble Tribunal was of the view that the suit is not contemplated in the statutory scheme contained in the IBC. The order of this Hon ble Tribunal was challenged before Hon ble Supreme Court and the petition was dismissed. The argument that despite five attempts Respondent has been unable to carry out auction sale is also not convincing as it may be due to appellant being in possession, as no intending purchaser may purchase premises in an auction, which is in possession of someone else and may land such intending purchaser(s) in litigation. Even the subsisting status quo as was issued by the Learned Court of Small Causes, only restrained the Liquidator from dispossessing the appellant without following due process of law, but admittedly the Respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of NCLT, per Section 60(5) of the Code, hence this argument of appellant too lacks merit. There could be no challenge to the powers of the NCLT to pass an eviction order in the factual matrix - Appeal dismissed. - ( Justice Ashok B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s argued the Learned NCLT had failed to consider there was a subsisting status quo order issued by the Learned Court of Small Causes in inter-parties proceedings between the Appellant and the Respondent and a Writ Petition bearing No.11069/2022 filed by the Ld. Liquidator against the order of the Learned Court of Small Causes is still pending. 5. In support of his submissions the Learned counsel for the Appellant has referred to an order dated 06.10.2021 passed in LD Suit No.97/2021 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai wherein it had restrained the Liquidator from dispossessing the plaintiff or obstructing his vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises either by himself or through any other person, without following due process of law till disposal of the suit. It is argued that the appellant went in Writ Petition but did not get any favourable order and deliberately not disclosed the pendency of Writ to the NCLT. 6. Heard. 7. Before proceeding further, we would like to refer to some relevant paras of the impugned order:- 10. As regards the question of jurisdiction, the Respondent has objected to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to evict him from the licensed premises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5)(c) of the Code to entertain or dispose of any question of priorities or any question of law or facts. arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code. Eviction of the Respondent from the licensed premises belonging to the Corporate Debtor under liquidation has direct nexus with the liquidation proceedings of the Corporate Debtor and therefore, this Tribunal has jurisdiction u/s 60(5) to entertain and dispose of the application for eviction of the Respondent. 12. As regards the suit filed by the Respondent in the Small Causes Court vide LD. Suit No. 97 of 2021, we wish to add that the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred u/s 63 of the Code from entertaining any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter on which NCLT has jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above, since NCLT has jurisdiction to evict the Respondent from the licensed premises of the Corporate Debtor under liquidation, we are of the view that the aforementioned suit is barred u/s 63 of the Code. We also wish to add that by virtue of Section 238 of the Code, the provisions of the Code override other laws notwithst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code. 10. Even otherwise, the issue of passing an eviction order qua immovable properties forming part of assets of Corporate Debtor, despite injunctions, have been discussed in various judgements. In Jhanvi Rajpal Automotive Pvt Ltd versus RP of Rajpal Abhikaran Pvt Ltd Anr Company Appeal No.1417 of 2022, this Hon ble Tribunal has taken a view in case of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 that where the Corporate Debtor has ownership right over the premises, the premises can be taken in control by IRP/.RP. This Hon ble Tribunal was of the view that the suit is not contemplated in the statutory scheme contained in the IBC. The order of this Hon ble Tribunal was challenged before Hon ble Supreme Court and the petition was dismissed. This issue once again came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Nitin Jan V, Universal Tutorial Pvt Ltd, COMPANY Appeal No.337 of 2021 where the NCLT refused to grant orders for taking possession and eventually this Hon ble Tribunal has allowed the application in view of the orders passed by this Hon ble Tribunal. 11. This issue in identical facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
