NCLT has jurisdiction to order eviction of unauthorized occupants from assets owned by the corporate debtor.

The Appellant, a marble supplier, occupied a portion of Plot No. 9 belonging to the Corporate Debtor (CD), Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd., since 2008 for "stocking" materials

Following a winding-up petition in 2015, the Bombay High Court appointed an Official Liquidator (OL) in 2016, who took symbolic possession of the premises on June 4, 2019

On November 6, 2019, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced against the CD

The Resolution Professional (RP) issued eviction notices in 2023 and 2025, asserting the Appellant's occupation was unauthorized

The Appellant resisted, claiming an oral tenancy where interest on outstanding dues from the CD was adjusted against rent

While the RP’s eviction application (IA 1697/2025) was pending, the Appellant obtained an ad-interim injunction from the City Civil Court on December 9, 2025, restraining eviction except by "due process of law"

On January 12, 2026, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) ordered the Appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days, holding the occupation illegal

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC to entertain an eviction application filed by the Resolution Professional against a third party?

2. Whether the Appellant established a valid tenancy, leasehold, or license right over the premises of the Corporate Debtor?

3. Whether the interim injunction granted by the City Civil Court precluded the Adjudicating Authority from passing an eviction order?

The court primarily applied Section 18(1)(f) and Section 25 of the IBC, which mandate the Resolution Professional to take custody and control of all assets over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership rights

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Victory Iron Works Ltd. vs. Jitendra Lohia, which affirmed that NCLT has jurisdiction to protect the possession of the Corporate Debtor’s assets

Furthermore, Section 63 of the IBC was applied to bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters where the NCLT/NCLAT has jurisdiction

The court also applied principles from Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of Baroda regarding the requirement for tenants to prove their status through evidence of regular rent payment

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding that because the CD admittedly owned the property, the RP was statutorily obligated under Sections 18 and 25 to recover possession to preserve the estate

Distinguishing earlier precedents like Embassy Property, the Court noted that since the asset belongs to the CD, the dispute is not dehors the insolvency proceedings

Regarding the claim of oral tenancy, the Court found the Appellant’s evidence—a 2008 letter permitting "stocking" of marbles—was insufficient to prove a lease

The Appellant's claim was further weakened by its own conduct; it had filed a claim in the CIRP for the full interest amount, which contradicted its plea that said interest was being adjusted as rent

Finally, the Court held that the City Civil Court’s injunction did not bar NCLT's order because Section 63 expressly ousts Civil Court jurisdiction over insolvency matters, and the NCLT's proceedings constituted the "due process of law" envisioned by the Civil Court’s own order

It held that the Adjudicating Authority possessed full jurisdiction to order eviction of an unauthorized occupant from the CD’s owned premises under Section 60(5)

The Appellant failed to prove any legal right to occupy the property

The Court upheld the NCLT’s direction to the Appellant to handover vacant possession within 30 days, failing which the RP is authorized to seek police assistance to recover the premises