The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an intervention petition filed by property developer Surya Landmark Developers in search of instructions to exclude its property, a chief 0.5-acre land parcel in Mumbai’s Decrease Parel, from insolvency proceedings initiated by Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprises (ACRE).

Surya Landmark argued that monetary creditor ACRE lacks authorized standing to provoke any motion in opposition to the property, together with a number of buildings referred to as ‘Bara Chawl’, because it doesn’t have any contractual settlement with the lender for the property.

The asset reconstruction firm has taken over the debt and associated case of property developer Rajesh Buildspace from erstwhile Altico Capital India.

Surya Landmark additional alleged that Rajesh Buildspace had fraudulently obtained a mortgage mortgage on the mentioned property. As an alternative, it had entered into an indenture of mortgage with Vistra ITCL (INDIA) in March 2018. Surya Landmark asserted that any authorized rights over the property would relaxation solely with Vistra ITCL, which had already initiated actions beneath the SARFAESI Act in February 2022.

Moreover, Surya Landmark talked about its ongoing efforts to cancel the joint improvement settlement with Rajesh Buildspace and plans to provoke prison and civil proceedings in opposition to the company debtor.

Regardless of these assertions, the NCLT Mumbai bench discovered the intervention petition untimely and never maintainable.

The tribunal’s resolution, overseen by technical member Anil Raj Chellan and judicial member Kuldip Kumar Kareer, underscores essential procedural points of insolvency legislation.

The tribunal highlighted that the proceedings beneath Part 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, had been nonetheless at a pre-admission stage. It famous that any claims concerning the property could possibly be raised if a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated later. The tribunal additionally emphasised that disputes regarding property titles can’t be resolved via abstract proceedings beneath the IBC.

The bench asserted that no intervention is permissible by any occasion on the pre-admission stage in proceedings beneath Part 7 or 9 of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, the NCLT dismissed the intervention petition, marking it as untimely and past the scope of permissible interventions at this stage of the proceedings.