Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 499
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Ms. Reeta Kohli, Ms. Madhu Sinha, JJ
Rekha Shah – Appellant
Versus
The Talati Manglej Village Karjan – Respondent
IA(I.B.C) - 2658/2021
For the Petitioner:Devarajan Raman
Easement rights established under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, are crucial for maintaining access to a Corporate Debtor's property during liquidation, impacting asset value maximization.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 15 - Right of way - Liquidator seeks injunction against obstruction of access to Corporate Debtor's property by Respondents - Court finds established easement rights enjoyed uninterruptedly for over 20 years, obstructed by Respondents' construction - Respondents' claims of jurisdictional issues and lack of nexus to insolvency proceedings rejected - Court emphasizes importance of maintaining access for value maximization during liquidation. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction - Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC affirmed, as obstruction directly impacts liquidation process and asset value maximization. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant, Liquidator of Adya Oils and Chemicals Ltd., filed an application seeking directions against Respondents for blocking access to New Block No. 83, essential for the Corporate Debtor's operations. The Respondents constructed a wall obstructing this access after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Findings of Court:
The Corporate Debtor has established uninterrupted easement rights through New Block No. 90 and 92 since 1998/1999, and the obstruction by Respondents is deemed a deliberate attempt to devalue the Corporate Debtor's assets.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the existence of easement rights, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 60(5)(c), and the impact of obstruction on the liquidation process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the easement rights were established under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and the obstruction by Respondents was a calculated effort to impair the Corporate Debtor's asset value, justifying the Tribunal's intervention.
Result: The Interlocutory Application is allowed, granting the requested reliefs.
ORDER
Per: Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial)
I. The above Interlocutory Application No. 2658 OF 2021 is filed by Ms. Rekha Shah, Liquidator of Adya Oils and Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”) seeking directions against The Talati, Manglej Village, Karjan & Ors. (hereinafter referred as the “Respondent/Respondents”) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 (hereinafter called “Code”), praying for following reliefs:
a) Grant injunction against the construction undertaken in new block nos 90 & 92 by Respondents 5 & 6, blocking the right of way of the CD to new block no 83.
b) The status qua to be maintained in the construction by Respondent no 5 & 6 in new block no 90 & 92, pending the removal of obstruction and defining the existing path by Respondent nos 1, 2, 3 & 4.
c) Direct the Respondent nos 1 to 4 to demolish the construction activity that has been undertaken to block the right of way to the CD to new block no 83 through new block nos 88,89,90 & 92.
d) Order Respondent nos 1 to 4 to ensure that the right of way provided by NA order No. N.A.S.R./2/99/99-2000/Land Vashi/1466/99 dated 04.11.1999 is wide enough for the passage of trucks, trailers and dumpers through new block nos 90 & 92.
e) Declare that the CD, being the dominant heritage owner has right to prevent the servient heritage owner from creating any obstruction in the right of way at any time in the future.
f) Direct the local authorities at Karjan Manglej Village, including the Police station at Manglej Village, Karjan to provide the necessary security and support for demolition of the obstructions in the right of way and to take cognizance of any complaint of further obstructions at any point of time in the future;
g) Direct Respondent no 4 to ensure that the right of way to new block no 83 is permanently incorporated in the land records of the Government of Gujarat.
h) Grant any other reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
II. Facts and submissions of the Applicant
1. The Applicant, Ms. Rekha Shah, is the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor and the case of the Applicant is that the Corporate Debtor was admitted to CIRP vide Order dated 16.09.2019. The Liquidation processed of the Corporate Debtor commenced vide Order dated 04.03.2020.
2. As submitted by the Applicant, the Corporate Debtor, M/s Adya Oils and Chemicals, owns the New Block No. 83 (Old Block No. 87) in village – Manglej, Taluka – Karjan, District – Vadodara. The said Block is a Non- Agricultural land which was bought for the purpose of constructing a unit for Castor oil manufacturing. The Right of way with respect to the said Block was through New Block No. 90 and 92 and, as contended, no unit for industrial activity can be permitted without the Right of way.
However, after the commencement of CIRP, the Applicant visited the said property and discovered that the access to the unit was blocked by the construction of a wall along the border of New Block No. 90 and 92, allegedly, by Respondent No. 5 and 6.
3. As contended by the Applicant, the NA Order (with respect to New Block No. 83) dated 04.11.1999 was granted by Taluka Panchayat Kacheri after completion of all formalities and the said Order clearly states that the road for getting entry into the land is from the National Highway from Old Block No. 94 and 96 (New Block No. 90 and 92) as per the undertaking given for entry in the Agreement dated 20.09.1999. Thus, in view of the same, the right acquired by the Corporate Debtor is a prescription right which has been given to the Corporate Debtor based on the provisions of the law by way of a NA Order of New Block No. 83. Further, as submitted by the Applicant, right of way is a prerequisite to access the industrial unit Block (NA Block) and in absence of a right of access / right of way, it will be not possible to run the said industrial unit.
4. The Applicant stated that after the commencement of CIRP, during the COVID-19 Lockdown, Respondent No. 5 and 6 bl
