Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

Order Date: 13 July 2026

Case Overview

The application was filed by Sri Manish Kapoor (Applicant) against Mr. Surender Devasani, Liquidator of M/s Vikram Structures Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Applicant sought multiple reliefs including directions to the Liquidator to take control of the 'VSPL Pinnacle' project assets, complete post-sale formalities for his commercial unit, represent the Corporate Debtor in pending commercial suits, conduct a forensic audit, and set aside the auction sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to Mr. Vikram Prabhakar (a suspended director & promoter of VSPL Projects Pvt Ltd).

The Applicant claimed ownership of a 4,000 sq ft commercial unit in the 'VSPL Pinnacle' project via a registered Sale Deed dated 16 December 2019, for which he paid full consideration. However, physical possession was never delivered due to the project's incomplete status and ongoing litigation between the Corporate Debtor and landowners. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Vikram Structures on 17 February 2022, based on a petition under Section 7 of the IBC by financial creditors India Asset Growth Fund and Vistra (ITCL) India Ltd. The Applicant submitted his claim during CIRP, but it was rejected by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) via communication dated 16 May 2022, after the Applicant failed to respond to a clarification sought on 12 March 2022 regarding whether he intended to relinquish his rights under the Sale Deed and pursue a monetary claim instead.

The Applicant alleged the Liquidator failed to protect the interests of registered purchasers, improperly excluded the VSPL Pinnacle project from the liquidation estate, and acted in collusion with certain stakeholders. He contended the project was oversold, with the Corporate Debtor collecting over ₹159 crore from 218 purchasers, and that the CIRP was wrongly initiated based on a time-barred corporate guarantee.

The Liquidator objected, stating the Application was belated (filed nearly three years after claim rejection) and suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties (the Applicant's wife was a co-owner in the Sale Deed). He argued the VSPL Pinnacle project did not form part of the liquidation estate as it had been completely sold via registered conveyances prior to CIRP commencement. The Liquidator emphasized that the Corporate Debtor had already been sold as a going concern to Mr. Vikram Prabhakar on 15 March 2025 pursuant to an order dated 4 March 2025 in IA No. 508/2024, and a Sale Certificate was issued. Consequently, the Liquidator no longer retained control over the Corporate Debtor. The Liquidator also highlighted that proceedings under Sections 43, 45, and 66 of the IBC for recovery of approximately ₹230.94 crore from suspended directors for preferential, undervalued, and fraudulent transactions were ongoing, and an investigation under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013, directed by the NCLT on 7 December 2023, was pending before the RoC, Karnataka.

The Tribunal observed that the dispute fundamentally emanated from a pre-CIRP contractual and property transaction. It held that the jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC could not be expanded to adjudicate disputed civil and contractual rights arising from pre-CIRP transactions. The reliefs sought, such as enforcing possession and completing conveyancing obligations, were beyond the scope of liquidation proceedings. The Tribunal noted the liquidation process had attained finality with the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, and the Applicant, having participated in CIRP without challenging the rejection of his claim at the relevant time, could not reopen concluded steps. The Tribunal found the allegations of fraudulent conduct by the Liquidator without foundation, noting that appropriate investigations and proceedings were already underway.

Final Outcome

IA No. 173/2025 was dismissed. The Tribunal held the Applicant was not entitled to any reliefs, but this was without prejudice to his rights and contentions in other pending matters (including PUFE applications IA Nos. 427/2022, 428/2022, and 429/2022) and to avail such remedies as may become available after the adjudication of those proceedings and the culmination of the Section 213 investigation.

Topics: Real Estate Dispute, Insolvency Process