Raman Khangura Vs Navneet Gupta & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Resolution Professional (RP) was fully justified in seeking possession through the insolvency process itself, the NCLAT affirmed the NCLT’s eviction order and held that separate eviction suits were not a prerequisite for reclaiming assets owned by a corporate debtor during CIRP.
Held: In the instant case, when the Resolution Professional, after taking charge of the corporate debtor, discovered that several portions of the hotel including the entire ninth floor, remained occupied by members of the promoter family. Notices were issued directing them to hand over possession, but the premises were not vacated, compelling the RP to approach the NCLT for appropriate directions. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellants argued that their occupation was protected under a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2015 and an arbitral award passed in 2019. They contended that these documents conferred occupancy rights and that the RP could not dispossess them without first obtaining relief through separate legal proceedings. It was also argued that the insolvency authorities lacked jurisdiction to effectively nullify rights recognized through arbitration. Resolution Professional, however, stated that the hotel was an undisputed asset of the corporate debtor and that the IBC imposed a statutory obligation upon the RP to take custody and control of all such assets. The RP further submitted that the alleged occupancy arrangement had never been disclosed in the company’s books, annual reports, or financial statements and surfaced only after eviction proceedings were initiated. Accepting these submissions, Appellant Tribunal observed that the objective of the IBC was to ensure a swift and effective insolvency resolution process. Requiring an RP to pursue separate civil remedies for eviction would frustrate the time-bound framework contemplated under the Code and hamper efforts to preserve and maximize the value of the corporate debtor’s assets. It was held that since appellant’s claim to occupy the corporate debtor’s premises was founded solely on the MoU dated 05.11.2015 and the arbitral award dated 19.03.2019, and neither document conferred any proprietary, possessory, or occupancy rights over the immovable property of the corporate debtor, no legal right to continue in possession could be established. At best, the MoU gave rise to a monetary claim recoverable through the CIRP process. Further, the MoU and arbitral award were not reflected in the corporate debtor’s records, financial statements, annual reports, or disclosures mandated under section 188 of the Companies Act, thereby casting serious doubt on their authenticity and contemporaneous existence. The conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances indicated that the documents were collusive and created as an afterthought to resist the Resolution Professional’s efforts to take control of the assets of the corporate debtor. Accordingly, the Resolution Professional was entitled to seek vacant possession of the premises for conducting CIRP, and Adjudicating Authority rightly directed appellant to vacate the property. Therefore, the impugned order warranted no interference and the appeals were dismissed, with a further period of two weeks granted to vacate the premises, failing which police assistance could be sought for enforcement.
These two Appeals have been filed challenging the same order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Chandigarh Bench (Court II), Chandigarh in IA (IBC)/2486(CH)/2024 filed in CP(IB) No.180/Chd/Pb/2022. Application filed by the Resolution Professional being IA No.2486 of 2024 seeking a direction of eviction of the Respondent to the application who are now Appellant had been allowed by the impugned order. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.686 of 2026 has been filed by Raman Khangura who was arrayed as Respondent No.4 to the IA No.2486 of 2024 whereas Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.801 of 2026 has been filed by Jagpal Singh Khangura who is father-in-law of Mrs. Raman Khangura. By the impugned order, Adjudicating Authority allowed the application filed by the Resolution Professional and directed the Appellant herein to vacate the premises within a period of two weeks failing which, the Resolution Professional was to seek assistance from Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. Aggrieved by the said order, these Appeals have been filed.
