Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical))

Order Date: 04.08.2026

Case Overview

These are two consolidated appeals (CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 83/2025 and 141/2025) filed by Sri Brindhavan Brick Works, a third party to the liquidation proceedings of Maan Sarovar Properties Development Pvt. Ltd. The appellant challenges two orders from the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). The first impugned order, dated 05.02.2025, dismissed the appellant's application (IA 1782/2023) to exclude its property from the liquidation estate, which had been published in Form G on 09.09.2023. The second appeal challenges an order dated 06.01.2025, which permitted the bifurcation of a resolution plan submitted by an entity referred to as PRA.

The dispute originates from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered into between the appellant and the corporate debtor (Maan Sarovar) in 2003. The appellant claims that beyond the execution of the agreement on 20.05.2019, no progress was made, leading it to terminate the JDA and cancel a related Power of Attorney granted to the corporate debtor.

The corporate debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the IBC on 01.07.2022. The Resolution Practitioner (RP) initially excluded the appellant's asset but later included it in the estate, prompting the legal challenge.

Representing the liquidator (DiMax Restructuring Pvt. Ltd.), it was submitted that the appellant's property was notified for acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 from 2005 until 2017, when the government dropped the acquisition. It was also contended that the corporate debtor had incurred expenses of nearly Rs. 3.0 crores for the initial development of the land in 2003-04. The liquidator argued that the Power of Attorney was irrevocable as it was coupled with consideration.

Crucially, the liquidator had already moved an application under Section 33(5) of the IBC, seeking leave of the Tribunal to initiate arbitration proceedings concerning the termination of the JDA. The Adjudicating Authority allowed this application on 10.02.2026.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT identified the core issue as the legal sustainability of the appellant's termination of the JDA. Noting that the liquidator had opted for arbitration to resolve this very issue, the Tribunal questioned the appellant on its keenness to prosecute the appeal. The appellant's counsel sought time to obtain instructions. Consequently, the NCLAT adjourned the matter to 07.08.2026 at 12.45 pm. Any interim orders previously granted by the Tribunal were ordered to continue until the next date of listing.

The practical consequence is that the status quo is maintained until the next hearing, and the fate of the appeal is now contingent on the appellant's decision to proceed, given the parallel arbitration route initiated by the liquidator.

Topics: Insolvency Litigation, Joint Development Agreement, Property Rights