Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 472

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NARESH SALECHA, Technical Member
Anup Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
SMRC Logistic and Warehouse Service Provider – Respondent
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1558 of 2024 | IA (IBC) No. 335/KB/2022 | Company Petition (IB) No. 662/KB/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Rahul Pawar, Mr. Rahul Kapoor, Mr. Kartik Nagpal
For the Respondents: Mr. Uttiyo Mallick, Mr. Shreedhar Gaggar, Mr. Debargha Basu, Mr. Soumya Dutta

Lessee's payment of total lease rentals to RP under CIRP satisfies obligations to lessor and constituted attorney per deed's comprehensive clause; RP must release internal shares; prior recovery order's finality bars further claims. (38 words)

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Lease deed stipulating separate monthly rentals to lessor and constituted attorney - Upon lessee's default, RP recovered lessor's share via court order - Subsequent claim by constituted attorney for share from amount received by RP - Held: Amount paid by lessee to RP included constituted attorney's share as per lease deed's comprehensive payment clause and lessee's payment statement; no error in directing RP to release fair share; earlier recovery order attained finality, barring further claims. (Paras 28-39)

(B) Lease Agreements - Interpretation - Clause requiring payment of total rent to lessor while delineating internal shares - Lessee's payment to lessor post-CIRP covers all shares including constituted attorney's; adjustable against security deposit; TDS and GST evidence supports due payments. (Paras 31-37)

Facts of the case:
Corporate debtor leased premises via unregistered deed providing separate rental entitlements to debtor and its constituted attorney. Lessee defaulted post-CIRP commencement. RP obtained order for debtor's share recovery; lessee paid amount to RP claiming it included both shares per deed and adjusted security deposit. Constituted attorney sought release of its share from RP; NCLT directed release; RP appealed.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order upheld as lease deed mandated comprehensive payment by lessee to debtor encompassing all shares; lessee's detailed statement and tax records confirmed inclusion; RP did not dispute or pursue further recovery.

Issues: Whether payment by lessee to RP exclusively covered debtor's share or included constituted attorney's share; maintainability of direct claim bypassing CIRP claim process; effect of prior recovery order's finality.

Ratio Decidendi: Court interpreted lease deed to hold lessee's payment to debtor as satisfaction of total dues including internal shares; RP bound to honour lessee's allocation statement and release constituted attorney's share; finality of prior order precludes additional claims.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. lease deed terms allocate separate rental shares. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 28)
2. rp recovered corporate debtor's rental share post-cirp. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 16 , 17 , 29)
3. dispute over inclusion of r1's share in payments. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 18 , 26)
4. r1's claim application violated ibc moratorium. (Para 10 , 11 , 30)
5. lessee adjusted security deposit against dues. (Para 24 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. impugned order upheld; appeal dismissed. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

J U D G E M E N T

( 21.04.2026)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant i.e., Mr. Anup Kumar Singh, who is the Resolution Professional of Sri Balaji Logistics Products Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) against the Order dated 05.06.2024 ("Impugned Order") passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench ("Adjudicating Authority") in in IA (IBC) No. 335/KB/2022 in Company Petition (IB) No. 662/KB/2018.

SMRC Logistic and Warehouse Service Provider, who is an unregistered partnership firm of the Corporate Debtor, is the Respondent No.1 herein.

QWIK Supply Chain Private Limited., who is the lessee of the Corporate Debtor, is Respondent No. 2, herein.

2. The Appellant contended that upon commencement of the CIRP on 17.07.2019, the Appellant, having been appointed as Resolution Professional, conducted a thorough inspection of the books and records of the Corporate Debtor and ascertained that the Corporate Debtor was owner of the open area measuring 5,27,653 square feet and covered area measuring 75,933 square feet situated at Mouza-Bighati, J.L. No. 14, China More J.L. No. 92 and Palara J.L. No. 15 under P.S. Bhadreshwar and Singur, Baidyabati, N.H-6, District-Hooghly, West Bengal-712124. The Appellant submitted that the said land had been made the subject matter of an unregistered “Lease Deed” dated 03.04.2018 executed between the Corporate Debtor as lessor and Fine Tech Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (now Qwik Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No. 2) as lessee for a period of three years at a total monthly lease rental of Rs. 31,73,314/- plus GST.

3. The Appellant contended that the lease deed itself clearly delineated the respective entitlements inasmuch as the Corporate Debtor was entitled to receive Rs. 24,93,885/- per month while the Respondent No. 1, claiming to have been appointed as Constituted Attorney of the Corporate Debtor under the same lease deed, was entitled to a separate sum of Rs. 6,79,429/- per month, with the explicit stipulation that both shares were to be paid directly and individually by the lessee into the respective bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent No. 1.

4. The Appellant submitted that in terms of the said unregistered lease deed, the Respondent No. 2 as lessee had paid an advance of Rs. 74,81,655/- to the Corporate Debtor and a separate advance of Rs. 20,38,287/- to the Respondent No. 1, thereby reinforcing the parties’ consistent understanding that the two shares were distinct, severable and never intended to be co-mingled.

5. The Appellant contended that when the Respondent No. 2 as lessee defaulted in payment of lease rentals for a substantial period, the Appellant, acting as Resolution Professional and being in complete charge of the management of the Corporate Debtor, was constrained to file C.A.(IB) No. 1769/KB/2019 specifically seeking recovery of only the Corporate Debtor’s share of outstanding lease rentals amounting to Rs. 1,82,51,922/- for the period from June 2019 to December 2019, comprising Rs. 47,76,997/- as on the CIRP commencement date and Rs. 26,94,985/- per month for the subsequent five months (August to December 2019) together with utility charges.

6. The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority by its order dated 20.02.2020, allowed the said application and directed the lessee, Respondent No. 2, to pay the sum of Rs. 1,82,51,022/- to the Corporate Deb