2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 3187

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Khetrabasi Biswal, Judicial Member, Shishir Agarwal, Technical Member
Pramod Kumar Misra – Appellant
Versus
Duke Fashions (India) Ltd. – Respondent
I.A. No. 1975 of 2023|I.A. No. 1991 of 2023|CP (IB) NO. 66/CHD/PB/2019

The tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under the insolvency code to order the eviction of occupants from a corporate debtor’s assets. This authority is a mandatory statutory duty that overrides state rent control laws, ensuring the time-bound realization of the liquidation estate for the benefit of creditors.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 18, 25, 35, 36, 60(5) and 238 - Liquidation estate - Authority of Liquidator to recover possession of assets - Applicability of Central legislation over State rent control laws - Interlocutory applications filed during insolvency resolution process survive as pending matters to be prosecuted by Liquidator - Liquidator is empowered to seek eviction of related-party occupants from assets belonging to corporate debtor - Tribunals possess jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from insolvency concerning recovery of assets forming part of liquidation estate - Non-registered lease deeds are void for creating interest in immovable property and are inadmissible in evidence. (Paras 9, 11, 19, 22, 24, 25)

(B) Eviction Proceedings - Jurisdiction - Whether tribunal is the appropriate forum for eviction against protected tenants - Section 238 of the Code operates as a complete override of any other law, including state rent control acts, to the extent of any inconsistency - Recourse to civil or rent control proceedings would frustrate the time-bound nature of the liquidation process. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
Applications were filed by the liquidator to secure the physical possession of two commercial properties belonging to the corporate debtor. These properties were occupied by related-party entities under unregistered long-term lease deeds. The respondents contended that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the liquidator was required to seek eviction only through the relevant state rent control authority, asserting protected tenant status under state law.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal held that the liquidator has the statutory duty to take possession of all assets forming part of the liquidation estate. The tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction under the code to adjudicate matters relating to the insolvency process, including the recovery of corporate assets. Unregistered lease deeds cannot be relied upon to create occupancy rights to frustrate a liquidation. The state rent control provisions are subordinate to the overriding effect of the insolvency law, which mandates timely asset realization for the benefit of creditors.

Issues: Whether the applications for eviction were maintainable under the code, whether the tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to order eviction of occupants, and whether such disputes are barred by state rent control legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal determined that because the properties are integral assets of the liquidation estate, the liquidator's powers to manage and realize these assets arise directly from insolvency law. The code provides a comprehensive framework that overrides conflicting state legislation, and the tribunal has the authority to direct the delivery of possession to ensure the time-bound completion of the liquidation process.

Result: Applications allowed; respondents directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession within two weeks.