Introduction

The case of Supriyo Kumar Chaudhuri & Anr vs. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd & Anr stands as a pivotal ruling in India’s evolving insolvency jurisprudence. Decided by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), this case delves into fundamental issues concerning property possession, moratorium enforcement, and the scope of the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of 2016.

The appeal arose from a dispute over the corporate debtor, JVL Agro Industries Limited, retaining possession of premises owned by Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. (JOML) during its corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and subsequent liquidation. JOML sought payment of rent and repossession of the premises, while the liquidator of JVL Agro contended that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prohibited such recovery. The NCLT ruled partially in favor of JOML, prompting the present appeal.

The NCLAT’s judgment underscored crucial aspects of insolvency law, including the application of moratorium provisions, the validity of rental claims, and the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction over contractual disputes. By reaffirming statutory protections under the IBC, this ruling reinforced the principles of due process, legal certainty, and the sanctity of insolvency proceedings in India.

FACTS

The dispute in Supriyo Kumar Chaudhuri & Anr vs. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd & Anr arose from a contentious issue regarding property possession and rental claims during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and subsequent liquidation of JVL Agro Industries Limited (the corporate debtor). The case revolves around the premises owned by Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. (JOML), which were being used as the registered office of JVL Agro.

JVL Agro had occupied the premises since 2007 and formally shifted its registered office there on February 14, 2018, following a no-objection certificate (NOC) issued by JOML. No formal rent agreement was executed, and JVL Agro continued its operations from the premises. However, after CIRP commenced against JVL Agro on July 25, 2018, JOML raised claims for unpaid rent, asserting that there was an understanding for a monthly rent of ₹6 lakhs plus GST. JOML sent emails on August 28, 2018, and subsequent reminders, seeking the execution of a lease agreement and payment of overdue rent, but the Resolution Professional (RP) did not acknowledge these claims.

While CIRP was ongoing, JOML took coercive action by locking the premises on July 28, 2020, effectively restricting the RP’s access to critical records and assets of JVL Agro. In response, the RP filed IA No. 199/2020 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), seeking the removal of the padlocks and restoration of possession. Simultaneously, JOML filed applications CA No. 57/2020 and CA No. 58/2020, seeking rental payments and an order directing JVL Agro to vacate the premises.

The NCLT, in its order dated August 6, 2021, acknowledged JOML’s claim for rent but did not order immediate repossession of the premises. Instead, it directed the District Magistrate to assess the rental value and mandated payment accordingly. Dissatisfied with this decision, both parties filed appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

The liquidator of JVL Agro argued that the moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, prohibited recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor. It was further contended that JOML had no pre-CIRP rent agreement and had only raised its claim after insolvency proceedings commenced. On the other hand, JOML contended that its financial distress necessitated the repossession of the premises and that its rental claims were legitimate.

The NCLAT was tasked with determining whether JOML’s claim for rent was enforceable and whether its actions violated the moratorium. The case raised significant legal questions regarding property rights, creditor classification, and the scope of the adjudicating authority under the IBC.

ISSUES

1. Whether the recovery of possession of the premises by Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. (JOML) during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and liquidation of JVL Agro Industries Limited was in violation of the moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
2. Whether JOML had a legitimate claim for rental dues from JVL Agro despite the absence of a formal rent agreement and whether the NCLT’s direction for rent assessment was within its jurisdiction under the IBC.
3. Whether the adjudicating authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC by adjudicating contractual disputes related to property rent, which were not directly connected to the insolvency resolution process of JVL Agro.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

Arguments by the petitioners

• The petitioners argued that Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. (JOML) unlawfully took possession of the premises during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by placing padlocks on the property on July 28, 2020. This act directly contravened Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which prohibits the recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor during the moratorium period.
• The petitioners contended that JOML had never entered into a formal rent agreement with JVL Agro and had allowed the use of the premises based on a no-objection certificate (NOC). The demand for rent was raised only after the initiation of CIRP, making it an afterthought. As there was no pre-existing contractual obligation, JOML’s claim for rental dues was not legally enforceable.
• The petitioners asserted that JOML’s illegal takeover of the premises disrupted the CIRP and liquidation process by restricting access to the corporate debtor’s registered office and financial records. This hindered the work of the liquidator and went against the principles of natural justice, as the corporate debtor was not given an opportunity to defend its possession rights.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents argued that JOML was the rightful owner of the premises and had permitted JVL Agro to use it based on an understanding that rent would be paid. They contended that an oral agreement existed for rent payments of ₹6 lakhs plus GST per month and that the corporate debtor had acknowledged this obligation in an undated letter.
• JOML maintained that its property was being used without compensation, even though leasing the premises was critical for its financial stability. Since the IBC recognizes certain essential services for the corporate debtor’s functioning, the respondents argued that continued occupation without rent amounted to unjust enrichment.
• The respondents defended their actions by stating that securing possession of the property was necessary due to non-payment of rent and ongoing financial distress. They further contended that Section 60(5) of the IBC granted the NCLT jurisdiction over any claims involving the corporate debtor, including those related to rent disputes.

DECISION

In Supriyo Kumar Chaudhuri & Anr vs. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd & Anr, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) addressed key legal issues concerning the enforcement of the moratorium, the legitimacy of rental claims, and the jurisdictional limits of the adjudicating authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

The NCLAT held that Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. (JOML) acted in violation of Section 14(1)(d) of the IBC by forcibly recovering possession of the premises occupied by JVL Agro Industries Limited during the moratorium period. The tribunal emphasized that any recovery of property occupied by the corporate debtor is expressly prohibited once CIRP is initiated. The action of placing padlocks on the premises was deemed unlawful.

Regarding the rental claims, the NCLAT determined that there was no binding agreement for rent payments before the initiation of CIRP, making JOML’s claim legally untenable. Furthermore, the tribunal found that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering an assessment of rental value, as contractual disputes unrelated to insolvency resolution fall outside its scope under Section 60(5) of the IBC.

Consequently, the NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order, affirming that no rent was payable during the moratorium and ensuring compliance with the statutory framework of the IBC. This ruling reinforced the principles of due process, fairness, and legal certainty in insolvency proceedings.

CONCLUSION 

The decision in Supriyo Kumar Chaudhuri & Anr vs. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd & Anr underscores the critical importance of statutory compliance, due process, and the protection of corporate debtor rights under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

A key aspect of the ruling was the enforcement of the moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) of the IBC. By holding that Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. (JOML) violated this provision through the forcible recovery of the premises, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) reaffirmed that insolvency proceedings are designed to maintain stability and prevent unilateral actions that disrupt the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). This ruling strengthens protections against coercive creditor actions during insolvency.

Furthermore, the tribunal’s rejection of JOML’s rental claim highlights the necessity of clear contractual obligations in insolvency disputes. The absence of a pre-CIRP rent agreement demonstrated that JOML’s claim was not legally enforceable. By setting aside the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) order directing a rental assessment, the decision also clarified the limits of the adjudicating authority’s jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC.

This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in maintaining procedural fairness in insolvency proceedings. It serves as a precedent for safeguarding debtor rights, ensuring adherence to statutory mandates, and upholding the integrity of the insolvency resolution framework in India.