Case Details

Case Name: IA(IBC)/217/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/22/KOB/2024

Parties: Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust & Attukal Bhagavathy (Idol) (Applicants) vs. Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited & Rajmohan R. (IRP) (Respondents)

Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)

Case/Order No.: IA(IBC)/217/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/22/KOB/2024

Order Date: 25 May 2026

Date of Institution: 23 April 2025

Presiding Officer: Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Shri. Vinay Goel

Parties Involved

Applicants:

  • Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust, represented by its Secretary Shri. Sarat Kumar K.
  • Attukal Bhagavathy (Idol), represented by the Devotee Trustee and Secretary of the Trust

Respondents:

  • Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited (Corporate Debtor), represented by its Interim Resolution Professional
  • Rajmohan R., Interim Resolution Professional and Insolvency Professional

Legal Representation:

  • For Applicants: Mr. Aswin Gopakumar, Advocate
  • For Respondents: Mr. A C Venugopal, Advocate and Mr. Rajmohan R, RP

Issues / Allegations / Violations

The Applicants sought declaration and recovery of their property comprising 112.5 cents (45.1 Ares) of land in Survey No. 1704, 1704/1, 1705, 1705/1, 1705/3, 1705/4, 1705/5 of Mancaud Village along with a three-storied building of 32,185 Sq. Ft., arguing that:

  • The property was leased to the Corporate Debtor via registered Rental Agreement dated 10.10.2008 for 15 years ending September 2023
  • The lease expired and was not renewed
  • The Corporate Debtor committed persistent defaults in rent payment from tenancy inception
  • Multiple proceedings were initiated before Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery of arrears and eviction (RCP No. 35 of 2011, RCP No. 15 of 2016, RCP No. 42 of 2024)
  • The property constitutes third-party asset excluded from CIRP under Section 18 of IBC
  • The IRP wrongfully included the property in CIRP assets and assumed possession

Findings & Observations

The NCLT made several key findings:

  • Ownership of the Schedule Property admittedly vests with the Applicants and has never been treated as an owned asset of the Corporate Debtor by the Resolution Professional
  • The Corporate Debtor continues as a statutory tenant protected under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 despite lease expiry
  • Multiple rent control proceedings between parties are pending before competent courts including RCP No.15/2016, RCP No.76/2016, and RCP No.42/2024
  • The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in RCR No.177/2020 directed Corporate Debtor to pay monthly rent of ₹1,44,833/- which continues during CIRP
  • Section 14(1)(d) of IBC specifically prohibits recovery of property occupied by Corporate Debtor during moratorium
  • The Corporate Debtor operates a 54-bed hospital from the premises, sustaining patients and employees
  • A Resolution Plan has been approved by CoC in its 16th meeting on 15.09.2025 and filed for NCLT approval (IA(IBC)(PLAN)/6/KOB/2025)
  • The timeline under Section 12 of IBC is not rigid and can be extended in exceptional circumstances per Supreme Court precedent

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

The NCLT disposed of the application with the following directions:

  • No declaration granted that property cannot form part of CIRP process (relief denied)
  • No direction for handing over vacant possession of Schedule Property during subsistence of moratorium and CIRP
  • Possession and occupation of Schedule Property shall continue in accordance with IBC provisions
  • Any rent/occupation charges payable during CIRP period constitute CIRP costs
  • The CoC and Successful Resolution Applicant must take informed commercial decision regarding continued occupation
  • Observations confined to reliefs sought regarding Schedule Property only

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • The Resolution Professional must continue to comply with rent payment directions of Hon'ble High Court (₹1,44,833/- monthly)
  • The Successful Resolution Applicant must continue pending Rent Control Proceedings in accordance with law
  • The CoC must exercise commercial wisdom regarding retention/relinquishment of property possession
  • All parties must pursue separate pending proceedings (moratorium violation, attachment orders) through appropriate forums

Final Ruling & Enforcement

The NCLT disposed of IA(IBC)/217/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/22/KOB/2024, denying the Applicants' request for possession of the hospital property during the ongoing CIRP. The moratorium under Section 14 of IBC continues to protect the Corporate Debtor's possession of the premises. The Resolution Plan approval process continues separately before the NCLT. The observations made are limited to this application and shall not affect other pending proceedings.