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

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2754

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, SHISHIR AGARWAL, JJ
Jasrati Education Solutions Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/S OSN INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
IA No. 1620/2024 in CP(IB) No. 10/Chd/Hry/2018



Advocates:
For the Applicant: Mr. Arora Vishwas Kumar, Mr. Aman Kashyap, Mr. Shashank Aggarwal, Mr. Aarush Kashyap
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohan Mittal
MR. SHONU CHANDRA - present in person
Mr. Rohit Khanna, Mr. Raghav Kapoor

The power of attorney holder must execute the sale deed even under pending investigations, as the approved Resolution Plan under the IBC prevails over individual objections without substantiated claims.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 32A, 238 - Power of attorney - General Power of Attorneys executed prior to Supreme Court judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana do not get affected by the latter judgment that limits the validity of such transactions - Refusal to execute Sale Deed by Power of Attorney holder is unjustified given no competing claims present. (Paras 20-22)

(B) Resolution Plan - Approved Resolution Plan under IBC includes assets in its execution - Powers of attorney remain valid unless legally challenged with documentation. (Paras 19, 25)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, previously known as Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Limited, successfully seeks direction to execute a sale deed for Subject Land amidst disputes from the Respondent No. 2 claiming expiry of sellers dealing with properties under power of attorney.

Findings of Court:
The application is granted; the Respondent No. 2 ordered to execute the sale deed, with the caveat regarding deceased sellers propagated by him being vague and unsupported by evidence.

Issues: Whether the refusal to execute the sale deed is justified under circumstances involving power of attorney agreements and the recent Supreme Court ruling on GPA.

Ratio Decidendi: The refusal lacks merit; statutory provisions under the IBC allow for the execution of pending deeds arising from approved resolution plans. The findings clarified that Respondent No. 2 does not hold proprietary interest in the property and must act to fulfill fiduciary duties.

Result: The application IA No. 1620/2024 is allowed with directions for the execution of the Sale Deed.

Table of Content
1. corporate debtor seeks execution of sale deed. (Para 1 , 4)
2. respondent highlights ongoing investigations impacting execution. (Para 5 , 10)
3. power of attorney is valid; statutory immunity protects sra's actions. (Para 19 , 20 , 25)

ORDER

The present application has been filed by Jasrati Education Solutions Limited (“Applicant”) (formerly known as Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Limited) i.e. the “Corporate Debtor” which is now under the control of the Mr. Paramjit Gandhi, the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”) in terms of the Resolution Plan approved by this tribunal vide order dated 14.12.2020. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking directions against the Respondents for registration of sale deed / transfer deed in respect of agricultural land comprised of various Khasras situated at Village Pata, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan, (“Subject Land”).

2. The Applicant has impleaded following as Respondents in the present application:

(i) Respondent No.1 - OSN Infrastructure & Projects Pvt. Ltd. – a company which acquired the Subject Land from certain sellers. It was stated that the Respondent No.1 had paid entire consideration pursuant to which the said sellers had handed over the possession to the Respondent No.1. However, the title was not conveyed by executing a ‘Sale Deed’;

(ii) Respondent No.2 is erstwhile director of Corporate Debtor and is the person who was authorized by the sellers of the Subject Land, under duly registered separate power of attorneys, to execute the sale deed on behalf of sellers and get the same registered;

(iii) Respondent No.3 is the Sub-Registrar under whose jurisdiction the Subject Land falls.

(iv) Respondent No.4 is the erstwhile RP of the Corporate Debtor.

3. The Applicant is the Corporate Debtor, but under the new management under implementation of the Resolution Plan.

FACTS OF THE APPLICANT

4. The counsel for the Applicant made following submissions:

(i) The Subject Land was originally owned by the following persons (“Sellers”):

S.No.Name of the SellerShareholding
1.Mr. Babulal s/o Mangtu64.72 Bigahs
2.Rajesh s/o Mr. Babulal60.26 Bigahs
3.Surrender s/o Mr. Babulal60.40 Bigahs
4.Pardeep s/o Mr. Babulal67.66 Bigahs
5.Vijender s/o Mr. Babulal55.99 Bigahs

All residents of Village Bada, P.O. Sikandarpur, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001.

(ii) Each of the Sellers had entered into various Memorandums of Understanding all dated January 10, 2011 (“MOUs”), with OSN Infrastructure for the sale of Subject Land. Subsequently, each of the Sellers had entered into various Agreements to Sell, all dated March 16, 2011, with OSN Infrastructure for the sale of Subject Land.

(iii) On March 25, 2011, the Sellers executed their respective and separate ‘Appointment of Nominee Agreement’ thereby appointing the Respondent No.2 as their respective nominee.

(iv) On April 08, 2011, the Sellers had executed their respective and separate ‘General Power of Attorneys’, authorizing the Respondent No.2 to, inter alia, execute the sale deed and/or any other documents/deeds incidental for selling/transferring the Subject Land and to present the same for registration at the competent sub-registrar. From a bare perusal of the ‘General Power of Attorneys’ placed on record, it is noted that these ‘General Power of Attorneys’ were duly registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar.

(v) At the relevant time, the Respondent No.2 was one of the directors of Educomp Solutions Limited, the parent company of the Corporate Debtor as it existed prior to CIRP. The Respondent No.2 was also a director on the board of directors of the Corporate Debtor (under the previous management, prior to CIRP) during the period between September 26, 2013 and May 29, 2015.

(vi) On April 24, 2011, after receipt of entire consideration amount, the Sellers (under their own signatures) handed over the possession of the Subject Land to OSN Infrastructure vide Deed of Possession dated April 24, 2011, executed by each o

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