Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 273

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Judicial Member, Man Mohan Gupta, Technical Member
Piyush Jain – Appellant
Versus
Chhaya Gupta – Respondent
IA/250(MP)2024|TP 230 of 2019|CP(IB) 192 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Teena Saraswat Pandey
For the Respondents: Chhaya Gupta

Registered sale deed presumes valid title and full payment; RP must verify claims precisely and handover possession of third-party assets post-CIRP initiation, subject to prior mortgage priority.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 18(f), 60(5), 66 - National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - Rule 11 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Third party plot purchaser - Registered sale deed executed prior to CIRP upon full payment - RP to verify claim within 4 weeks and handover possession subject to prior mortgage rights - Registered sale deed carries presumption of validity and full consideration receipt; rebuttable only by concrete evidence - Assets owned by third party excluded from RP custody under Section 18 Explanation - Premature registration not invalidating title; balance consideration remedy lies in recovery suit - Prior registered mortgage prevails over subsequent sale under priority principle - RP duty to precisely verify claims and mortgage status, not generalize. (Paras 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 48, 54, 55 - Registered sale deed confers absolute title; mere third party payment allegation insufficient without fraud proof - Mortgage over project land binds subsequent purchasers unless discharged. (Paras 14, 23)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, claiming as bona fide third party purchaser of residential plot via registered sale deed executed in 2016 upon full payment prior to CIRP, sought exclusion from corporate debtor assets, full claim admission, and possession handover under Section 18(f). RP disputed classifying under 'third party payments', alleging fraudulent/premature registry, balance dues, and subsisting bank mortgage over entire stock from 2013 loan.

Findings of Court:
RP directed to verify applicant's claim within 4 weeks; post-verification, handover vacant possession of plot subject to bank mortgage rights; RP to maintain neutrality sans unfair conditions.

Issues: (i) Substantiation of RP's classification, fraud/balance dues allegations absent records/forensic audit; (ii) Subsistence of bank mortgage over specific plot and RP's duty for current details. (Para 9)

Ratio Decidendi: Registered sale deeds presume valid execution/full payment; RP bears onus to rebut via evidence, not averments. Section 18 excludes third party owned assets from custody. Prior mortgage priority survives; sale subject thereto unless NOC/discharge. No moratorium breach in possession post-claim verification for fully paid plots aiding going concern. (Paras 10, 21-23, 25)

Result: Interlocutory application disposed with directions to RP for claim verification and possession handover subject to mortgage.

Table of Content
1. application seeks plot exclusion and claim admission. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant claims ownership via pre-cirp registered sale deed. (Para 3)
3. rp alleges premature registries and third-party payments. (Para 4)
4. rejoinder defends bona fide purchase, objects rp delays. (Para 5)
5. court notes admitted sale deed, frames adjudication issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
6. section 18 excludes third-party assets from rp custody. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
7. registered sale deeds confer absolute title to allottees. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
8. full payment enables possession handover during cirp. (Para 16 , 17)
9. rp must verify specific mortgage status on plots. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
10. registered deeds presume validity; fraud needs proof. (Para 21 , 22)
11. prior registered mortgage prevails over subsequent sale. (Para 23)
12. prima facie payment evidence; rp to verify further. (Para 24 , 25)
13. rp to verify claim, handover possession subject to mortgage. (Para 26)

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 16.05.2024, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (the ‘IBC, 2016’) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016 (the ‘Rules, 2016’), by Mr Piyush Jain (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 that the plot legally owned by the Third Party be excluded from the assets/ Information Memorandum of the CD. The details of plot are below:

details of plot are below:

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

Date of Order: 13.01.2026 b) To direct the Respondent/RP to accept and admit the claim of the Applicant in totality.

c) To direct the Respondent/RP to handover the possession of the plot owned by the Applicant in view of Sec 18 (f) of IBC 2016, being third party property is not part of the assets of the CD. Pass any further order(s) as this Tribunal deem fit and proper.

2. 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).

3. The Applicants case in brief is:

a) The Applicant submits that they have purchased residential plot in the project launched by CD 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 Applicant have become legal owner of respective plot. Details of the property in a tabular format is below:

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

Date of Order: 13.01.2026

(Copies of the registered sale deed duly executed in favour of the Applicant is annexed under ANNEXURE A of the present application.)

b) The Applicant submits that the sale deeds 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 is a lawful & absolute 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 furth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 273

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALBrajendra Mani Tripathi, Judicial Member, Man Mohan Gupta, Technical MemberPiyush Jain – AppellantVersusChhaya Gupta – RespondentIA/250(MP)2024|TP 230 of 2019|CP(IB) 192 of 2017

Registered sale deed presumes valid title and full payment; RP must verify claims precisely and handover possession of third-party assets post-CIRP initiation, subject to prior mortgage priority.

Cases Referred (5)

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Judicial Member, Man Mohan Gupta, Technical Member
Piyush Jain – Appellant
Versus
Chhaya Gupta – Respondent
IA/250(MP)2024|TP 230 of 2019|CP(IB) 192 of 2017