Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 07 NCLAT CK 0026

Prakash Jain & Ors. vs Sunil Kumar Agarwal

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Pricipal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 9 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Justice Yogesh Khanna, Officiating Chairperson · Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 786 of 2026 & I.A. No. 3062 of 2026

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 304 words

(Hybrid Mode)

This appeal is against an impugned order dated 16.02.2026, whereby the applications filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 was dismissed.

2.

In the application, the appellant sought stay of the operation and implementation of the auction sale of the property known as “New Ramakada Market Bhaduat Association” having addressed at Ramakada Market, Pankornaka, Ahmedabad–380001 situated at 02684/6.8.91112/19+21. Further, he is aggrieved of the valuation of the subject property.

3.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant the sale transaction pertains to the said property be declared as null and void as he is a tenant in such certain property for the last several years and his tenancy is in perpetuity. Admittedly, the property in question is sold by the bankruptcy trustee for the sum of Rs.1,81,00,000/-, which according to the appellant is below the prevailing market price.

4.

We have perused the order of the Ld. NCLT which shows there is nothing on record to demonstrate the locus standi of the applicant to challenge the auction process as the only submission made by him is he is a tenant and in occupancy of the subject property under a lease, hence has no right to question the auction of the property or the bankruptcy of its owner.

5.

We have gone through the entire order and we see no reason to interfere with the same considering the appellant is merely a lessee in the subject property and not the owner thereof. The appeal devoid of merits as the appellant being a tenant has no right to challenge auction or its valuation and if he intends to protect his tenancy, may seek appropriate remedy.

6.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications are also disposed of.