Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 12

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Bhushan, J
Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) | IA (I.B.C) 1697(MB)2025 | CP(IB) 494/MB/2019 | Company Petition No.1066 of 2015 | Company Application No.261 of 2019 | S.C. Suit No.2944 of 2025

For Appellant:Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Prasad, Mr. Vedant Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents:Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Ashish Pyasi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Ms. Katyayani, Mr. Yash Tandon, Mr. Utkarsh, Advocates.

Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to order eviction from corporate debtor's premises on RP's application to protect assets; no tenancy without rent proof; civil court injunction yields to IBC due process.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 18(1)(f), 25(1), (2)(a), 60(5)(c), 63 - Duties of resolution professional - Eviction from corporate debtor's premises - Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to entertain application by resolution professional for eviction of unauthorised occupant from premises owned by corporate debtor, as RP is obliged to take control and custody of assets under Sections 18(1)(f) and 25; nexus with insolvency process established by ownership of asset; civil courts barred under Section 63. (Paras 8-10, 14, 22, 32-34)

(B) Oral tenancy/lease - Proof - Mere permission to stock materials vide letter, without evidence of rent payment or tenancy agreement, does not create tenancy rights; occupation against outstanding dues does not constitute tenancy; permission terminates upon initiation of winding-up/CIRP and notices to vacate. (Paras 23-31)

(C) Interim orders by other courts - City Civil Court injunction restraining interference 'save and except by due process of law' does not preclude Adjudicating Authority proceedings under IBC, which constitute due process. (Paras 32-34)

Facts of the case:
Appellant occupied part of corporate debtor's premises (1701.3 sq. mtr.) since 2008 initially for stocking materials supplied to corporate debtor, later for own business. Permission via 2008 letter; claimed occupation against unpaid dues. Winding-up proceedings initiated (2015), symbolic possession taken by liquidator (2019). CIRP commenced (2019); RP issued eviction notices (2023, 2025); filed application for possession allowed by Adjudicating Authority directing vacate within 30 days. Appellant filed civil suit (2025) obtaining interim injunction. Appeal challenging jurisdiction and tenancy rights.

Findings of Court:
Appellant's occupation unlawful; no tenancy/lease/license proved; Adjudicating Authority directed to extend 30 days for vacating; police assistance permitted if non-compliance.

Issues: (I) Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority over RP's eviction application; (II) Existence of tenancy/lease/license rights; (III) Effect of City Civil Court interim injunction. (Para 6)

Ratio Decidendi: RP entitled to seek possession of corporate debtor's assets from unauthorised occupants before Adjudicating Authority to fulfil statutory duties; oral tenancy unproven absent rent evidence or agreement; civil court injunction inapplicable where IBC proceedings provide due process; prior liquidation efforts reinforce RP's rights post-CIRP.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of occupation and cirp initiation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties' contentions on jurisdiction and tenancy. (Para 4 , 5)
3. nclt jurisdiction to direct eviction under sections 18, 25, 60 ibc. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. no tenancy proven; permission terminated post-winding up. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. civil court injunction no bar under ibc section 63. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
6. appeal dismissed; eviction ordered with police assistance. (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT

27th March, 2026) Ashok Bhushan, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench-I in IA (I.B.C) 1697(MB)2025 filed by the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor- ‘Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.’ The Application filed by the Resolution Professional seeking eviction of the Appellant who was occupying the part of the premise of the Corporate Debtor has been allowed by the impugned order directing the Appellant to vacate and handover possession within 30 days. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal has been filed.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:-

2.1. The Corporate Debtor- Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. is a Real Estate Company engaged in infrastructure development. The Corporate Debtor in February/ March 2008 permitted the Appellant, who was supplying marbles and stones to the Corporate Debtor to set up a sales office at the premises to avoid transportation delays and minimise logistical costs. Appellant set up sales office on part of Plot No.9 situated at Shriram Mills premises. The Appellant was initially supplying the marbles and stones to the Corporate Debtor and was catering Corporate Debtor exclusively. However, from December 2008, Appellant was permitted to carry on its business operation from the premises by catering to other customers. A Winding-Up Petition No.1066 of 2015 was filed by Action Barter Private Limited against the Corporate Debtor before the Bombay High Court seeking winding up of the Corporate Debtor. On 05.10.2016, Bombay High Court passed an order appointing an Official Liquidator to take charge of the assets/ properties and records of the Corporate Debtor. Official Liquidator appointed by the Bombay High Court went to take possession of the premises from the Appellant who was working adjacent to Gate No.3, Plot No.9 on 04.06.2019. Representative of the Appellant informed that there is no prior intimation from the Official Liquidator to vacate the premises, he sought at least 30 days’ time to vacate the premises. The liquidator on 25.06.2019 issued a letter to the Appellant to vacate the premises. The date for handing over possession was fixed as 01.07.2019. Appellant filed a Company Application No.261 of 2019 in Company Petition No.1066 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court seeking restraint order from taking possession of the property and permitting Appellant to hold possession of property as agent of liquidator. No written order was passed by the Bombay High Court, however, the Advocate of Appellant sent an e-mail that Court has orally directed from not taking possession and 03.07.2019 is the date fixed in the application. In the application, no orders could be passed in favour of the Appellant by the Bombay High Court, however, Appellant continued to be in occupation of the premises. On an application under Section 7 filed by Srei Equipment Finance Ltd., CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 06.11.2019. The Respondent No.1 filed a claim before the Resolution Professional claiming principal amount of Rs.1,34,86,201/- and the interest @ of 18% totalling to Rs.3,06,51,041/- as outstanding against the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional by letter dated 10.02.2023 informed the Appellant that they are in unauthorised and lawful occupation of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 12

Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to order eviction from corporate debtor's premises on RP's application to protect assets; no tenancy without rent proof; civil court injunction yields to IBC due process.

Cases Referred (6)