Reliance Realty Limited Vs Anup Kumar (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator duly allowed to remove all the movable assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the leased premises since appellant/lessor never raised any objection regarding ownership of assets either during CIRP or during liquidation proceeding.
Facts- The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-IV). By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Liquidator-Respondent No.1 to remove all moveable assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the leased DKAC premises and restrained the Appellant from obstructing the Liquidator and successful bidder from accessing these moveable assets. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.
Conclusion- Held that the provisions of IBC enjoin the Liquidator to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor in a manner that would result in maximization in value, lead to quick recovery for the stakeholders and obviate scope for any unnecessary delay. There is no challenge made to the auction process conducted by the Liquidator and for declaring the SAP to be the highest bidder. In the present case, the assets have already been sold, possession memo prepared and Sale Certificate issued in favour of the SAP by the Liquidator. The Liquidator has already distributed the proceeds of sale in terms of Regulation 42(2) of Liquidation Regulations. That liquidation proceedings have to be completed in a time bound manner and in the shortest possible time is well settled. The present liquidation process has been going on for last two years and now that the process has culminated and Sale Certificate already issued, the liquidation process should not be disrupted and derailed by the Appellant who for no cogent reasons had never agitated the issue of ownership of assets lying in the leased premises. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order allowing the Liquidator to remove all moveable assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the leased premises and in restraining the Appellant from obstructing the Liquidator and successful bidder from accessing these moveable assets. Thus, there is no cogent ground for giving any relief to the Appellant. The Appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed with no costs.
