NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH COURT – IV Item No.: 4 IA 3986(MB)2025 IN C.P. (IB)/363(MB)2023 CORAM:

SHRI ANIL RAJ CHELLAN SHRI K. R. SAJI KUMAR HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING (HYBRID) HELD ON 18.02.2026 NAME OF THE PARTIES: MILLENIUM ENTERPRISE VS BOMBAY INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED For Applicant : Adv. Shloka Dikshit i/b Chandhiok and Mahajan. For Respondent : Adv. Shavez Mukri i/b A&G Legal Associates LLP.

Sections 9 & 60(5) of IBC.

O R D E R

IA 3986(MB)2025

1. This Application has been filed by the Applicant, the Resolution Professional of Bombay Infrastructure India Limited (Corporate Debtor) seeking directions to the Respondent to handover possession of an asset of the Corporate Debtor situated at Ground Floor Shop No 3, Metro Shoes in Eternity Mall, Teen Hath Naka, Eastern Express Highway, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, West, Thane, Maharashtra - 400080, (said Property).

2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present application are that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor was initiated pursuant to an admission order dated 02.08.2023, passed by this Tribunal. Subsequently, the Applicant was confirmed as the Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor. Pursuant thereto, the Applicant, while taking actions in the CIRP, noticed that a property owned by the Corporate Debtor was attached by the Respondent for non-payment of arrears of property tax for the said Property. Therefore, the Applicant intimated to the Respondent the initiation of CIRP and urged the Respondent to file its claim with the Applicant in Form B. The Applicant also requested the Respondent to release the said Property from any lien, encumbrance, or charge that may have been created in relation to the pending property tax dues. This request was followed by letters to the Respondent dated 07.07.2025 and 26.07.2025. It is submitted that the Respondent is yet to handover possession of the said Property. Hence, this application.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that it is the duty of the RP to protect and preserve the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Further, during the imposition of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, no enforcement or recovery action with respect to the Corporate Debtor's assets or properties can be taken.

4. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that he has not filed any reply to the application. However, the Respondent has already filed a claim in respect of the pre-CIRP dues with the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant has neither admitted nor rejected the claim filed by the Respondent. In the circumstances, the Respondent contends that it cannot make a decision for the release of the attachment or lien on the said property.

5. The submissions of the Counsel have been duly considered. It is undisputed that the said Property belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is presently under the lock and key of the Respondent. As per Section 25 of the Code, it is the duty of the RP to protect and preserve the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and is responsible for the continued business operations of the Corporate Debtor. Further, the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Code prohibits any enforcement or recovery action with respect to the assets or properties in the possession of the Corporate Debtor. The absence of a decision on the claim filed by the Respondent does not justify the retention of the assets owned by the Corporate Debtor. The CIRP is to be concluded within the timeframe, and the release or transfer of possession of the Corporate Debtor's assets is integral to the effective completion of the CIRP within that timeframe.

6. Given the circumstances, we direct the Respondent to handover the possession/remove the attachment /lock, if any, put on the said Property within 7 days from the date of uploading the order. Further, the Applicant is directed to