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)(NCLT) 271

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Judicial Member, Man Mohan Gupta, Technical Member
Manoj Jakhetiya – Appellant
Versus
Chhaya Gupta – Respondent
IA No. 254 of 2024 in TP No. 230 of 2019 | CP (IB) No. 192 (MP) of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Teena Saraswat Pandey, PCA
For the Respondents: Mrs. Chhaya Gupta, RP

Registered sale deeds of fully paid plots pre-CIRP confer third-party ownership excluded from CIRP estate under Section 18(f) IBC; RP must handover possession subject to pre-existing mortgage rights after obtaining bank NOC.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 18(f), 60(5), 14, 30(2) r.w. Rule 11 NCLT Rules, 2016 - Third party assets - Plots sold via registered sale deeds prior to CIRP with full consideration paid - RP admitted such plots not part of CD asset pool - Held, registered sale deeds confer valid title; assets owned by third parties excluded from CIRP estate per Explanation to Section 18 - RP duty-bound to handover possession subject to pre-existing mortgage rights - Direction issued to obtain NOC from mortgagee bank with RP assistance; plots excluded from Information Memorandum/resolution plans - RP to maintain neutrality, no authority to suggest onerous conditions on plot owners. (Paras 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, 19)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 54, 55 - Registered sale deeds create title; unregistered agreements confer no interest - Presumption of validity attaches to registered documents. (Para 11)

(C) Moratorium - Section 14 IBC - Handover of possession of fully paid registered plots does not infringe moratorium as it constitutes 'revenue from operations' and maintains going concern status. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, owner of residential plot via registered sale deed executed pre-CIRP upon full payment, sought possession from RP under Section 60(5) IBC claiming it as third-party asset per Section 18(f). RP admitted plot not part of CIRP assets but raised issues of premature registration, project incompletion and subsisting mortgage over entire plot stock created pre-sale.

Findings of Court:
Plot declared third-party asset outside CIRP estate; RP directed to handover vacant possession subject to mortgage rights; applicant to obtain mortgagee NOC with RP assistance.

Issues: (i) Whether direction for possession handover of third-party owned plot permissible; (ii) Effect of pre-existing mortgage on such plot.

Ratio Decidendi: Third-party assets per registered title excluded from CIRP; possession handover mandatory subject to mortgage clearance; resolution plans cannot impose conditions on excluded assets without third-party consent; RP must act impartially.

Result: Application disposed of with directions for possession handover post mortgage NOC.

Table of Content
1. application seeks handover of third-party plots under ibc section 18(f). (Para 1 , 2)
2. rp admits paid registries but notes premature execution and mortgage. (Para 3)
3. applicant rebuts rp claims, seeks possession sans financial claims. (Para 4)
4. third-party assets excluded from cirp under section 18(f) explanation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. registered sale deeds confer valid title to allottees. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. rp must remain neutral; resolution plans exclude third-party assets. (Para 13 , 14)
7. mortgage rights persist; possession subject to bank noc. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
8. directs plot handover subject to ubi mortgage and rp neutrality. (Para 19)

Mr. Man Mohan Gupta, Hon’ble Member (T)

Appearance:

For the Applicant : Ms. Teena Saraswat Pandey, PCA For the Respondent : Mrs. Chhaya Gupta, RP O R D E R

1. The present Application, filed on 15.05.2024, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016, by Manoj Jakhetiya (the ‘Applicant’), against Mrs. Chhaya Gupta (the ‘Respondent’) Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s JSM Devcons India Private Limited (the ‘Corporate Debtor’), for seeking directions as given below:

a) To direct the Respondent/RP to handover the possession of plots owned by applicant in view of Sec 18 (f) of IBC 2016, being third party property is not part of assets of the CD. The details of plots are below:

is not part of assets of the CD. The details of plots are below:

is not part of assets of the CD. The details of plots are below:

is not part of assets of the CD. The details of plots are below:

is not part of assets of the CD. The details of plots are below:

[CP (IB) No. 192 (MP) of 2017]

Date of Order: 13.01.2026 b) Pass any further order(s) as this Tribunal deem fit and proper.

2. The Applicant’s case in brief is:

a) This Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 12.04.2019 passed in TP No. 230 of 2019 [CP (IB) No. 192 of 2017], admitted M/s JSM Devcons India Private Limited (“the Corporate Debtor”) into the CIRP and appointed Mr. Vineet Agrawal as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Further, vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed by this Adjudicating Authority, Mr. Vineet Agrawal was replaced, and Ms. Chaya Gupta was appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP).

b) The Applicant submits that he has purchased residential plot in the project launched by M/s. JSM Devcons India Private Limited in 2016, well prior to the RP appointment. After paying the full agreed consideration, the CD executed and registered sale deeds with the Sub-Registrar Indore, upon payment of requisite stamp duty and charges, thereby the Applicants have become legal owners of their respective plots. Details of the property in a tabular format is below:

[CP (IB) No. 192 (MP) of 2017]

Date of Order: 13.01.2026 (Copy of the registered sale deed duly executed in favour of the Applicant is annexed under ANNEXURE A of the present application.)

c) The Applicant submits that the sale deed in respect of their plot were duly executed and registered more than three years prior to the commencement of the CIRP and the appointment of the IRP. At no point prior to or subsequent thereto has any objection been raised to their ownership. Accordingly, the Applicant are the lawful owner of their respective plot. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh & Ors. v. Birbal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 353, wherein it was held that a registered document carries a presumption of valid execution, and the burden lies on the party disputing it to rebut such presumption. It is further submitted that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any action to set aside a registered sale deed must be initiated within three years from the date of knowledge of the cause of challenge, which period has long expired.

d) The Applicant submits that a claim was duly filed before the IRP on 16.12.2023, which was kept under verification as per the communic

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