SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 341

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J
IDFC First Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Seikh Abdul Salam – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 848 of 2024 | I.A. No. 7183 of 2024 | Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1009 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Mr. Ajay Monga, Adv. Geetansh Kathuria, Mr. Sameer Goel, Adv. Abhilasha Sharma, Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Yadav
For the Respondents:Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Mr. Ishaan Saha, Ms. Malavika Chandramouli

Auction sale confirmed pre-CIRP becomes absolute under Income-tax Act Second Schedule Rule 63; title passes on confirmation, not sale certificate issuance; moratorium under IBC Section 14 does not affect such pre-CIRP absolute sales.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 7, 14 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - Section 29 - Income-tax Act, 1961 - Second Schedule (Rules 56, 63, 65) - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Moratorium - Auction sale of immovable property under RDB Act - Sale proclamation issued pre-CIRP, auction held pre-CIRP, confirmation of sale on 20.11.2023 pre-CIRP (commenced 01.01.2024) - Issuance of sale certificate post-CIRP on 14.03.2024 delayed due to interim court order - Held, under Rule 63 Second Schedule, sale becomes absolute on confirmation by Recovery Officer if full purchase money paid and no application to set aside sale; sale certificate under Rule 65 merely evidences title, does not transfer it - Title passes on date of confirmation (20.11.2023), moratorium has no effect on already absolute sale - NCLT order declaring confirmation/sale certificate null and void post-CIRP initiation set aside. (Paras 10-13, 23-24)

(B) Sale certificate - Nature and effect - Ministerial act evidencing absolute sale; title vests in auction purchaser on confirmation, not issuance of certificate - Distinguished SARFAESI auction where completion requires full payment compliance post-confirmation. (Paras 18-22)

Facts of the case:
Financial creditor obtained recovery certificate under RDB Act; auction of corporate debtor's mortgaged share conducted pre-CIRP; purchaser deposited full amount; sale confirmed pre-CIRP but certificate issuance deferred due to interim stay, issued post-CIRP; RP's application to nullify sale and restore possession allowed by NCLT.

Findings of Court:
Impugned NCLT order unsustainable; sale absolute pre-CIRP; property no longer asset of corporate debtor at CIRP commencement.

Issues: Whether confirmation of auction sale pre-CIRP but sale certificate post-CIRP violates moratorium; effect of sale confirmation under Second Schedule Income-tax Act vis-à-vis IBC Section 14.

Ratio Decidendi: On confirmation of auction sale under RDB Act read with Second Schedule Income-tax Act, sale becomes absolute and title passes if full payment made and no set-aside application; subsequent sale certificate is evidentiary, moratorium inapplicable to pre-CIRP absolute sales.

Result: Appeals allowed; NCLT order set aside; RP's application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of appeals against nclt order (Para 1 , 2)
2. timeline of loan, mortgage, auction, and cirp (Para 3 , 9 , 10)
3. sale confirmed pre-cirp; certificate ministerial (Para 6)
4. sale incomplete without post-cirp sale certificate (Para 7)
5. rdb act applies income tax second schedule rules (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. distinguishing indian overseas bank (sarfaesi case) (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. title vests on sale confirmation; certificate evidentiary (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. moratorium inapplicable to pre-cirp absolute sale (Para 23 , 24)
9. nclt order set aside; rp application dismissed (Para 25)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These two Appeal(s) have been filed against the same order dated 24.04.2024 passed in IA(IB)No.592/(KB)/2024 in CP (IB) No. 218/(KB) /2023. By the impugned order the application filed by the Resolution Professional (“RP”) being IA(IB) No.592/(KB)/2024 has been allowed. Aggrieved by which order these Appeal(s) have been filed. The order dated 24.04.2024 was corrected by corrigendum order dated 26.04.2024.

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 848 of 2024 has been filed by IDFC First Bank Ltd., who was Respondent No.1 in IA(IB)No.592/(KB)/2024. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1009 of 2024 has been filed by Quest Queen Vista LLP, who was Respondent No.2 in IA(IB)No.592/(KB)/2024. In the Appeal on 01.05.2024, an interim order was passed directing status quo, with regard to possession of the assets.

3. Brief facts of the case, necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:

(i) IDFC First Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Financial Creditor”) has sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.25 crores to Monotona Tyres Ltd. (the “Borrower”). The Corporate Debtor (“CD”) – M/s Jai Gokul Towers Pvt. Ltd. was one of the Guarantors of the Term Loan Facility. Under the Facility Agreement in October 2017, immovable property described in Schedule-5 bearing Municipal Holding No.43/72; Mondalghanti (presently known as 1, Kaxi Nazrul Islam Avenue), under Municipal Ward No.13 formerly 26 was included. A Mortgage Deed was also executed on 01.02.2018. The CD also had 1/6th share in mortgaged property.

(ii) Financial Creditor had filed a Commercial Suit (L) No.310 of 2018 against Monotona Tyres Ltd. and others for recovery of dues in which a consent term as submitted on 04.04.2018 and the same was taken on record and a Decree dated 04.04.2018 was passed, under which Defendant Nos.1 to 10 were ordered to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.30,06,68,557/- being the principal amount with Rs.1,52,87,671/- as interest till 29.02.2018 with certain other amounts. Consent Decree was passed High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Commercial Execution Application (L) No.1765 of 2018 was filed in pursuance of Decree of the High Court dated 04.04.2018 for execution of the Consent Decree, which was allowed by the High Court. The Financial Creditor filed an application before the High Court for transfer of all proceedings from High Court of Bombay to DRT Mumbai. On 04.04.2019, the execution proceedings were transferred to the DRT Mumbai, which issued a Recovery Certificate on 19.02.2021 in favour of Financial Creditor.

(iii) Recovery Officer of DRT issued proclamation of sale notice on 08.09.2023 for sale of subject land. On 10.10.2023, Title Suit No.1179 of 2023 was filed by Jai Badrinath Niketan and Jai Raghuvir Enclave (P) Ltd. before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),2nd Court Barasat against certain debtors of the Appellant. An interim stay was sought, which was refused by the Learned Lower Court on 10.10.2023.

(iv) Bids were invited by the Recovery Officer till 06.10.2023. On 12.10.2023, the Recovery Officer declared Quest Queen Vista LLP as Successful Auction Purchaser, who was directed to deposit 25% of the sale consideration. On 20.11.2023, sale in favour of Auction Purchaser was confirmed and Registry was directed to issue ITCP-18 and ITCP-20 in favour of the Auction Purchaser.

(v) On 20.11.2023, the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top