NCLAT Affirms Resolution Professional’s Authority to Evict Unlawful Occupants

March 27, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, presided over by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra, has delivered a landmark judgment in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 187 of 2026. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the January 12, 2026, order of the NCLT Mumbai, which directed Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd. to vacate premises owned by the Corporate Debtor, Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.. This legal battle originated from a 2008 arrangement where the Corporate Debtor permitted the Appellant to use a portion of Plot No. 9 at the Shriram Mills premises for stocking marble and maintaining a sales office to reduce logistical delays. Despite the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on November 6, 2019, and subsequent eviction notices issued by the Resolution Professional (RP) characterizing the occupation as an unlawful encroachment, the Appellant refused to vacate.

In its detailed analysis, the NCLAT addressed the Appellant’s primary contention that the Adjudicating Authority lacked the jurisdiction to order an eviction, arguing that such matters should be relegated to a Civil Court. The Tribunal firmly rejected this stance, noting that under Sections 18 and 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the RP is statutorily mandated to take immediate custody and control of all assets over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership rights. The Bench observed that requiring the RP to pursue lengthy civil litigation would fundamentally undermine the time-bound nature of the insolvency process. Furthermore, the Tribunal scrutinized the Appellant’s claim of an “oral tenancy” supposedly tied to outstanding dues of approximately ₹1.34 crore. The NCLAT dismissed this claim as an “imagination” designed to justify illegal occupation, pointing out that the only evidence provided was a 2008 letter merely granting permission to stock materials rather than establishing a formal lease or license.

Regarding the Appellant’s reliance on an interim injunction from the City Civil Court at Bombay dated December 9, 2025, the Tribunal held that Section 63 of the IBC explicitly bars civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over matters within the NCLT’s purview. Since the Civil Court’s order only protected the Appellant from dispossession “save and except by following due process of law,” the NCLAT concluded that the NCLT’s eviction order constituted that very due process. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting the Appellant 30 days to handover vacant possession. Should the Appellant fail to comply, the RP is authorized to take possession of the premises with the full assistance of police personnel. 

Case Reference : Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 187 of 2026 Judgment Date: March 27, 2026