Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

IN T

Pawan Kumar State of Haryana

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

227 of the Cons learned Executin for enforcemen affirmed in appe Brief Facts

2.

Bri for mandatory in direction to th comprised in Re per the demarca

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro

VERSUS a and Others

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Parminder Singh, Advocate for r. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryan -.-

ANNU J. e petitioner has preferred the pre stitution of India, assailing the or ng Court, whereby the execution nt of the decree for mandatory eal on 24.07.2025, has been dism ief facts of the case are that the p njunction before the learned Civ he respondents to remove en ectangle No. 17, Killa Nos. 21/2 ation report dated 06.06.2017. It

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-6860-2025 (O&M) served on:- 15.10.2025 onounced on:-27.10.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU r the petitioner. na for the respondents. esent revision petition under Arti rder dated 18.08.2025 passed by n application filed by the petitio y injunction dated 21.10.2021, missed. petitioner–decree holder filed a s il Judge (Jr. Divn.), Indri, seekin croachment made over his la 2/2, 22/2, 23/2, 24/2, and 25/2/1 was alleged that respondents No

icle oner as suit ng a and , as o. 1

to 3 (PWD De petitioner's land through its Chai learned trial Co suit for manda directing respon by respondents N I, Karnal vide challenge the de

3.

enforcement of by filing a reply still pending. Respondent No.

4.

Sub to insolvency p

(NCLT) against appointed, no tr

5.

dismissed the liquidator, the p Submissions of

6.

Lea illegal and with decree. It is s epartment) had constructed a ro d, and subsequently, responden irman, further encroached upon ourt, after appreciating the evide atory injunction vide judgmen ndents No. 1 to 4 to remove the e No. 1 to 3 was dismissed by the e judgment dated 24.07.2025, w ecree and it thus attained finality e petitioner thereafter filed a the aforesaid decree. Responde y, taking the plea that the appeal The said objection was dism . 4 did not file any objection. bsequently, respondents No. 1 to proceedings initiated before the t respondent No. 4 and contend ansfer of assets of the corporate e executing Court, vide imp execution petition, holding th ossession of the land could not b f learned counsel for the partie arned counsel for the petitioner c hout jurisdiction, as the executin submitted that the NCLT pro

oad by enclosing a portion of nt No. 4 – M/s Best Foods L another part of the same land. T ence and the site plan, decreed nt and decree dated 21.10.20 encroachment. The appeal prefer e learned Additional District Jud whereas respondent No. 4 did as against him. an execution application seek ents No. 1 to 3 contested the sa against the trial Court's decree w missed by the executing Co o 3 moved an application referr National Company Law Tribu ed that since a liquidator had b debtor could be made. pugned order dated 18.08.20 hat due to the appointment o be transferred to the petitioner. s contends that the impugned orde ng Court has travelled beyond ceedings do not adjudicate c

Ltd. 021, rred dge-not king ame was urt. ring unal een 025, f a er is

ownership right respondent No. argued that the d spirit.

7.

On appointment of the said Tribuna Findings of this

8.

I h with their able a

9.

application vide proceedings und Code") were p Chandigarh, aga Professional had which prevented

10.

A p

(IB) No. 117/C application filed initiation of co records the adm Importantly, no found in the said assets of the cor ts of the petitioner's land and th 4 to show any stay or bar agai decree has attained finality and i n the other hand, learned State c a liquidator by the NCLT, the al for necessary permission to ex s Court have heard learned counsel for t assistance. e learned Executing Court, e order dated 18.08.2025, proce der the Insolvency and Bankru pending before the National C ainst respondent No. 4 – M/s B d been appointed, there was an " d transfer of assets or delivery of perusal of the order dated 02.02 Chd/CHD/2017 shows that the d by one M/s Hajura Singh Bhim orporate insolvency resolution mission of the petition and appoin express declaration of moratoriu d order, nor does it record that th rporate debtor.

hat no material was ever placed inst removal of encroachment. I is required to be executed in its t counsel submits that in view of petitioner should have approach xecute the decree. the parties and perused the rec while dismissing the execut eeded on the assumption that si uptcy Code, 2016 (for short, " Company Law Tribunal (NCL Best Foods Ltd., and a Resolut "operation of stay" under the Co f possession to the decree-holder

2.2018 passed by the NCLT in C same was passed merely on m Singh, an operational creditor, proceedings. The said order o ntment of a Resolution Profession um under Section 14 of the Cod he land in question forms part of

d by It is true hed cord nce "the LT), ode r. C.P. an for only nal. de is

11.

Eve Section 14 of th corporate debto demarcation rep petitioner, and directs removal recovery of mon

12.

Thu of a third party The NCLT has third-party prop court.

13.

principle underl Korada, Resolu AIR (SC) 222, Supreme Court and declares a barred from pas decision was ren insolvency, over

14.

subject land has and the decree m respondent No. en assuming, for the sake of a he Code was in effect, its operat or. The decree under execution port dated 06.06.2017, has been the decree dated 21.10.2021, a l of encroachment therefrom. ney nor transfer or alienation of t us, the protection under Section y merely because the corporate no jurisdiction to adjudicate titl perty, as such matters fall squar e reliance placed by the learn lying the judgment of the Hon' ution Professional v. M/s Varsh is entirely misconceived and m held that once the NCLT adm moratorium under Section 14, ssing orders affecting the assets ndered in the context of propert r which the High Court of Orissa e facts of the present case are s been found by competent civil merely directs removal of encro

¶4The property under execution

argument, that a moratorium un tion is confined to the assets of pertains to land which, as per conclusively held to belong to affirmed in appeal on 24.07.20 The said decree neither conce the corporate debtor's property. n 14 IBC cannot extend to prope debtor has unlawfully occupied le or possession disputes relating rely within the domain of the c ned AAG for respondents on ble Supreme Court in Anand R ha Fabrics (P) Ltd. & Ors., 20 misplaced. In that case, the Hon' mits a corporate insolvency petit civil courts and High Courts s of the corporate debtor. The s ty belonging to the company un a had ordered an auction. fundamentally different. Here, l courts to belong to the petition oachment by respondents, includ n does not form part of the assets

nder 025, erns erty d it. g to civil Rao 'ble are said nder ner, ding

the corporate d interfere with Consequently, th the facts of the p

15.

jurisdiction and subsisting decre assets can be m untenable, as th encroachment an Conclusion

16.

In

18.08.2025 pas petition filed by Court is directe ensure complia appellate court o

17.

18.

Pen

October 27, 202 tripti

Whether

Whether ebtor, nor does its possession o any insolvency resolution pro he ratio of Anand Rao Korada's present case. e learned Executing Court, d committed a patent error in ee by travelling beyond its scope made" owing to the pendency of he execution sought is not for tr nd delivery of possession of the view of the aforesaid discus sed by the learned Executing y the decree-holder is restored to ed to proceed with the executio ance of the decree dated 21.1 on 24.07.2025. e present revision petition is allo nding application(s), if any, also

speaking/non-speaking : Speaking reportable : Yes/No

or restoration to the lawful ow ocess pending before the NCL s case (supra) has no application therefore, acted wholly with refusing to execute a valid a e. The reasoning that "no transfer f insolvency proceedings is lega ransfer of assets but for removal decree-holder's land. ssion, the impugned order da Court is set aside. The execut its original number. The Execut on in accordance with law and

10.2021, as affirmed by the f owed. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE

wner LT. n to hout and r of ally l of ated ting d to