Case Details

Case Name: Raman Khangura & Jagpal Singh Khangura vs. Navneet Gupta & Ors.

Court/Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Case Numbers: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.686 of 2026 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.801 of 2026

Date of Judgment: 29th May, 2026

Impugned Order: Order dated 17.03.2026 passed by NCLT Chandigarh Bench (Court II) in IA (IBC)/2486(CH)/2024 filed in CP(IB) No.180/Chd/Pb/2022

Period of Dispute: Occupation of premises from initiation of CIRP on 03.07.2024 until judgment date

Parties Involved

Appellants:

  • Raman Khangura (Appeal No.686/2026) - Former director of Corporate Debtor and wife of Jasbir Singh Khangura
  • Jagpal Singh Khangura (Appeal No.801/2026) - Father-in-law of Raman Khangura and former shareholder/director

Respondents:

  • Navneet Gupta - Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor
  • Committee of Creditors (CoC) - Sole financial creditor UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.
  • Other interested parties

Corporate Debtor: Majestic Hotels Limited, owner of Hotel Majestic Park Plaza (five-star hotel) in Ludhiana

Financial Creditor: UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (claiming assignment from Tourism Finance Corporation of India)

Issues / Allegations / Violations

Core Issue: Unauthorized occupation of Corporate Debtor's assets by ex-directors and their family members during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)

Specific Allegations:

  • Resolution Professional could not take possession of rooms on 8th and 9th floors of hotel occupied by suspended directors and their family/friends/associates
  • Raman Khangura claimed occupancy rights based on:
  • MoU dated 05.11.2015 between her and Corporate Debtor acknowledging compensation of ₹49,98,02,186 for her residential property mortgaged and auctioned by Punjab & Sind Bank
  • Arbitral Award dated 19.03.2019 upholding her right to occupy premises
  • Resolution Professional alleged these documents were:
  • Not part of Corporate Debtor's statutory records or books of account
  • Not disclosed in financial statements or as related party transactions under Section 188 of Companies Act
  • Unregistered and inadequately stamped
  • Collusive and fabricated given the familial relationships

Financial Impact: Default amount claimed by financial creditor was ₹14,35,57,30,109 as on 28.02.2022

Findings & Observations

Tribunal's Key Findings:

1. Document Authenticity: Serious doubts about contemporaneous existence of MoU and Arbitral Award:

  • No disclosure in company records or financial statements
  • Husband Jasbir Singh Khangura (Managing Director) stated in 1st CoC meeting (02.08.2024) that occupancy was "perquisite of promoters" without mentioning MoU
  • Documents surfaced only in reply to Resolution Professional's application

2. Legal Invalidity: MoU dated 05.11.2015 was:

  • Unregistered document that cannot create occupancy rights in immovable property
  • Inadequately stamped under Indian Stamp Act, 1899
  • Related party transaction requiring but lacking shareholder approval under Section 188 of Companies Act

3. Arbitral Award: Could not create higher rights than the underlying MoU and was questionable given the circumstances

4. Occupancy Claims: Even if compensation claims were valid, proper recourse was to file claim in CIRP, not occupy corporate assets

Legal Reasoning:

  • Cited precedent: Gir Vanvaso Resort v. Pancard Clubs Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2091) - unregistered MoU cannot create possession rights
  • Cited precedent: Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Truvisory Insolvency Professional Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (affirmed by Supreme Court) - Resolution Professional can take possession of corporate assets without filing separate civil suit
  • Section 18(1)(f) of IBC mandates Resolution Professional to take control of all assets over which corporate debtor has ownership rights

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

Original NCLT Order (17.03.2026):

  • Directed appellants to vacate hotel premises within two weeks
  • Authorized Resolution Professional to seek assistance from Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana if not vacated
  • Required compliance report from Police Commissioner and Resolution Professional

NCLAT Modifications:

  • Dismissed both appeals
  • Granted additional two weeks from judgment date (29.05.2026) for vacation of premises
  • Upheld police assistance authorization if premises not vacated within extended timeframe

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

Immediate Requirements:

  • Complete vacation of 9th floor premises within two weeks from 29.05.2026
  • Handover peaceful possession to Resolution Professional

Ongoing Obligations:

  • Resolution Professional to complete inventory and valuation of all corporate assets
  • Resolution Professional to continue CIRP process for Majestic Hotels Limited

Final Ruling & Enforcement

Tribunal's Decision:

  • Both appeals dismissed
  • Impugned order dated 17.03.2026 upheld with modified timeline
  • Parties to bear their own costs

Enforcement Mechanism:

  • Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana directed to provide police assistance to Resolution Professional for eviction if required
  • Resolution Professional and Police Commissioner to file compliance report with NCLT