A lessee’s apprehension of dispossession during liquidation should be raised before the NCLT.

The plaintiff, claiming to be a lessee in possession of property belonging to the first defendant company, which was in liquidation, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against forcible dispossession and interference with its occupation and business operations.

The trial court initially granted an ex parte interim injunction, but, after hearing the parties, dismissed the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and allowed the defendants’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 4, vacating the injunction.

On appeal, the High Court noted that insolvency proceedings were pending before the NCLT, which had permitted inspection of the property by prospective bidders; an application seeking the plaintiff’s eviction was also pending before the NCLT.

1. Whether the trial court’s order dismissing the application for temporary injunction and vacating the ex parte injunction called for interference in appeal.

2. Whether the plaintiff’s apprehension of forcible dispossession should be addressed by the civil court or through an application before the NCLT.

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against orders concerning temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Rule 4 CPC.

The Court considered the pending insolvency proceedings and the NCLT’s role in dealing with the company’s property, including the pending application concerning the plaintiff’s eviction.

The judgment does not identify or apply any specific precedent or articulate a broader legal test for appellate interference.

The High Court found that the plaintiff and defendants were already parties to the NCLT proceedings and that the NCLT was considering applications concerning the property.

The NCLT had authorized inspection by prospective bidders, but the High Court noted that the plaintiff did not dispute that order.

Finding no material showing that the defendants had attempted to take forcible possession, the Court saw no cogent reason to interfere with the trial court’s order.

It considered the NCLT the appropriate forum for the plaintiff to raise any apprehension of forcible dispossession.

The plaintiff was granted liberty to apply to the NCLT regarding any apprehension of forcible dispossession; if such an application was made, it was to be considered, including alongside any pending application by the defendants relevant to the plaintiff’s grievance.

The High Court expressly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.