Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench – I

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

This Interlocutory Application (IA(IBC) No. 4964 of 2025) was filed by Mr. Prakash Dhayapule (Applicant) against M/s Shri Sai Priya Sugars Limited (Successful Resolution Applicant/SRA) and others, including the Corporate Debtor Shree Kedarnath Sugar and Agro Products Limited. The application sought clarification/modification of the Tribunal's order dated 21.09.2020, which approved the resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 21.08.2019.

The principal dispute concerned the ownership of land parcels admeasuring 19.35 acres (Survey/Gat Nos. 77/2, 85/1, 80/2, 79/1, 71/2A and 88/2) at Kerakalamatti village, Taluka Badami, referred to as 'Land 3' in the resolution plan. The Applicant claimed to have purchased this land through a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2020 from Mr. Vaman Shripad Diwan (Respondent No. 7) and asserted that it was wrongly included as an asset of the Corporate Debtor in the plan. The Applicant prayed for declarations that his proprietary rights remain unaffected and for directions to revenue authorities to not mutate the land based on the approval order.

The Respondents (SRA and Corporate Debtor) contended that the land was disclosed in the Information Memorandum during CIRP. They asserted that the Corporate Debtor had paid an advance of ₹15.70 Crores to its directors/promoters for purchasing this land, as recorded in the company's 2017-2018 annual report and auditor's notes, though it was not yet registered in the company's name pending state government approvals. They argued the subsequent sale to the Applicant was void and that the resolution plan's approval made its clauses final and binding.

The Tribunal examined the resolution plan, which classified the total 160 acres into three categories: Land 1 (owned by CD), Land 2 (owned by promoters & mortgaged), and Land 3 (owned by promoters/relatives & not mortgaged). Clause 10.2.6.ix of the plan stated that consideration for Land 3 had been paid by the Corporate Debtor and that upon plan approval, it "shall stand transferred" to the Corporate Debtor or the SRA's nominees. The Tribunal also noted the Auditor's Report (24.08.2018) which confirmed that title deeds for about 111 acres were held in the names of Directors & their relatives, while only 49 acres were in the company's name.

Final Outcome

The Tribunal disposed of the application. It held that its approval order dated 21.09.2020 did not adjudicate the title of Land 3 nor direct the transfer or mutation of any land standing in the name of third parties. It noted the resolution plan itself recognized that Land 3 was not owned by the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the beneficial ownership of the land were disputed, citing the ₹15.70 crore advance paid by the Corporate Debtor versus the Applicant's claim of a valid purchase. It concluded that the jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the disputed land parcels is vested in civil courts, not the NCLT, especially in the absence of complete details of the 111 acres of land. The parties were granted liberty to seek appropriate remedial recourse before a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution, Property Title Dispute