Rahat Hussain Vs Divyesh Desai & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Adjudicating authority have passed order to handover the possession of the shops by the Appellant.
It was the case of the appellant that he acquired rights from the respondent in pursuant to the agreement dated 07.09.2006. Property (shop) in question were part of government grant hence does not require registration. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that property was always shown in the records in the name of the Corporate Debtor and its Promoters/Directors. Hence, there was no authority in favour of the Executive Director who is claimed to have executed a Sale Agreement. It was submitted that there is no right in the Appellant and the entire CIRP is concluded.
After considering the submissions, NCLAT observed that sale agreement is unregistered document which is required to be registered in terms of Amendment Act 2001 inserted vide Act 48/2001 in Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. The Appellant is claiming right on the basis of the Sale Agreement which Aale Agreement is admittedly unregistered and executed on a stamp of 20 rupees. Executive director who executed agreement was not authorized. Property is shown in the name of corporate debtor and liquidator has every right to take possession of the shop on which appellant could not prove title. NCLAT, finally, dismissed the appeal.
