# In the matter of Rose Constructions, vs. Atul Kumar Bansal

> NCLAT judgment dated 2026-04-06. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00075. The case involves a dispute over property possession between M/s Rose Constructions…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 6 Apr 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00075
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/rose-constructions-vs-atul-kumar-bansal-784e6f77

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a dispute over property possession between M/s Rose Constructions (appellant) and Mr. Atul Kumar Kansal, the Resolution Professional (respondent) of the Corporate Debtor. The appellant claims a right over the property based on a lease deed, while the RP alleges encroachment.

## Facts

M/s Rose Constructions claims to be a partnership firm awarded civil contract work by the Corporate Debtor on 31.12.2014.

A dispute arose over payment, which the appellant claims was resolved through a settlement deed dated 20.04.2017.

On 20.12.2017, the Corporate Debtor executed a lease deed in favor of one of the partners of the appellant.

CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 03.07.2018.

The RP filed I.A. 1197 of 2019 against the appellant under Section 45 of the IBC, which is still pending.

The RP filed I.A. 2738 of 2020 alleging encroachment by the appellant.

The Adjudicating Authority allowed I.A. 2738 of 2020, directing the appellant to vacate the property.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appellant's eviction vide I.A. 2738 of 2020 is appropriate while I.A. 1197 of 2019 is …

**Ratio:** Any decision to evict the appellant during the pendency of I.A. 1197 of 2019 cannot be

…

**Reasoning:** I.A. 1197 of 2019 is premised on the legitimacy of the lease deed dated 20.12.2017, and

…

**Interpretation:** The court interprets that the pendency of I.A. 1197 of 2019, which questions

…

**Application:** The court applied this interpretation to set aside the order passed in I.A.

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** N. Sesha…; Arun Ba…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** M/s Rose Construct…; Vipin K…
- **Respondents:** Atul Kumar…
- **Advocates:** Nitesh…; P. Na…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2014-12-31 — Contract A…**: M/s Rose Constructions was awarded…
- **2017-04-20 — Settlemen…**: Dispute over payment resolved…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 45 — Avoidance of undervalued transactions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-45)

---

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/rose-constructions-vs-atul-kumar-bansal-784e6f77