# K.H. Khan & Anr. v. Art Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-11-14. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00091. The case involves two appeals (1116/2024 and 1117/2024) filed by the same appellant…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 14 Nov 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00091
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kh-khan-anr-vs-art-constructions-pvt-ltd-ors-5e743f7e

## Summary

### Background

The case involves two appeals (1116/2024 and 1117/2024) filed by the same appellant challenging orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi). The appeals concern a dispute over land ownership and development rights in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appellant claims ownership of the land and seeks its exclusion from the CIRP of the corporate debtor, Adel Landmarks Ltd. The dispute arises from a series of agreements, including a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Collaboration Agreement, and Assignment Agreement, involving the appellant, Upkar Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Era Landmarks (India) Ltd. (later renamed Adel Landmarks Ltd.), and Parinda Buildcon Private Limited. The Adjudicating

…

## Facts

The appellants are the owners of land measuring 36 acres 04 Guntas in Bangalore. In 2008, they entered into an MoU with Upkar Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated by the appellants. A loan of Rs. 15 Crores was taken from HUDCO, mortgaging the land. A Collaboration Agreement was signed with Upkar Developers and Era Landmarks (India) Ltd., where Era Landmarks was designated as the Developer, responsible for discharging the HUDCO loan and developing the project. The developer was to pay Rs. 35 Crores as an interest-free Refundable Security Deposit. In 2010, an Assignment Agreement was entered into by the Developer with its subsidiary, Parinda Buildcon Private Limited, assigning development rights. Legal notices were issued in 2012 alleging the corporate

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to enter into issue as to whether the …

**Ratio:** The NCLT has jurisdiction to determine whether an asset is part of the corporate debtor's

…

**Reasoning:** The Resolution Professional is obligated to obtain details of the assets of the corporate

…

**Interpretation:** The Adjudicating Authority has the power to determine if the subject land is an

…

**Application:** The Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to examine the application on

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…
- **Appellants:** K.H. Khan…
- **Respondents:** Adel Landmarks…; Art Constructions…
- **Other parties:** 8th Edition…; Development…; +13 more

## Timeline

- **2008-04-25 — MoU Sign…**: Appellants and Karar Ahmed entered into an MoU…
- **2008-07-05 — Collaboration…**: Collaboration Agreement signed with Upkar Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Era Landmarks…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 3(27) — Definitions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-3)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kh-khan-anr-vs-art-constructions-pvt-ltd-ors-5e743f7e