Case Law Details
State Bank of India Vs Meenakshi Energy Ltd (NCLT Hyderabad)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble NCLT while taking into consideration the Interlocutory Application u/s. 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, have observed that moratorium under Section 14 would not be applicable to the properties wherein the possession of the Corporate Debtor is unlawful.
Facts: In 2009 the Respondent “Corporate Debtor” approached the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (“APIICL”) for allotment of land for installing a power plant in the District of Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. The APIICL upon considering the request of Corporate Debtor allotted 938.90 acres of land. In this case, APIICL mistakenly had allotted land of the Applicants herein to the Corporate Debtor, for setting up of power project. Aggrieved by this, the Applicant herein in this case, filed a Writ Petition WP(C) Nos. 32019, 32245 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking the relief of writ of mandamus and/or directions to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its agencies not to allot or interfere with possession and enjoyment of the Applicants above stated Patta Lands which is in their possession. The APIICL in the counter affidavit filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh admitted their mistake in taking over the lands belonging to the Applicants and in handing over the same to the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court observed as under:
“The state has accepted the mistake of fact in acquiring the title and nature of holding of writ petitioners. This admission goes to the root of acquisition/resumption of petition lands by the State. The other respondents in my view cannot plead contrary to the stand taken by State to claim right or title to the petition lands. The writ petitions are allowed.”
The APIICL requested Corporate Debtor to return the aforementioned land to which the Corporate Debtor was ready and willing to give back the land that have been taken over, however they requested the APIICL to allot/substitute land in return of the land belonging to the Applicants or to repay the amounts that have been paid by the Corporate Debtor. That APIICL without following the directions issued from time to time by its officers as well as the competent authority had failed to release the aforementioned land in favour of the Applicants in timely manner. Subsequently, Corporate Debtor had undergone CIRP proceedings by the order of this Tribunal in CP No. 184/7/HDB/2019 dated 07.11.2019 and moratorium was implemented. Therefore, the Applicants herein approached Hon’ble NCLT as the land belonging to the Applicants do not form part of the moratorium. The Hon’ble NCLT framed the issue which was required to be taken into consideration was whether the Corporate Debtor herein is entitled to stall the recovery of the subject land in occupation by the corporate debtor, by the Applicants/Landowners in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the I&B Code.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
