# In the matter of Smti. Aditi Bezbaruah Vs. Mr. Kamalesh Kumar Singhania & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1468 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-04-05. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00552. The case involves two appeals (CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1468 of 2019 and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1473 of…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 5 Apr 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00552
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/smti-aditi-bezbaruah-vs-mr-kamalesh-kumar-singhania-ors-company-appeal-55d3f99e

## Summary

### Background

The case involves two appeals (CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1468 of 2019 and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1473 of 2019) filed by Smti. Aditi Bezbaruah and Smti. Utpala Bezbaruah, respectively, against a common order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Guwahati Bench). The Appellants, who are sisters, had entered into separate development agreements with M/s Maxim Infrastructure and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate debtor) for the development of their respective land plots. Disputes arose when the Corporate debtor failed to adhere to the agreed terms, leading to the Appellants filing a writ petition in the Guwahati High Court. Subsequently, Bank of India initiated insolvency proceedings against the Corporate debtor under Section 7 of the IBC.

…

## Facts

Smti. Aditi Bezbaruah and Smti. Utpala Bezbaruah, the Appellants, are sisters who owned contiguous plots of land in Assam. They entered into separate development agreements with M/s Maxim Infrastructure and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate debtor) on 08.07.2008 and 26.05.2008, respectively, for the development of their lands. Aditi Bezbaruah's land measured 6.69 Ares, while Utpala Bezbaruah's land measured 6.69 Ares and 13.94 Ares. As part of the agreements, the Corporate debtor was to construct a multi-storeyed commercial complex and compensate the Appellants with a share of the constructed area: 12.94% for Aditi and 24.66% for Utpala. The Appellants executed General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) in favor of the Corporate debtor to facilitate the development. However, the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to the …

**Ratio:** The NCLT/NCLAT could have exercised jurisdiction under section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to

…

**Reasoning:** The court relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gujarat Urja

…

**Interpretation:** Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC grants the NCLT/NCLAT the power to adjudicate

…

**Application:** In the present case, the development agreements between the Appellants and the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Alok Sriv…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Smti. Aditi…
- **Respondents:** Maxim Infrastructu…; Kamalesh Kumar…

## Timeline

- **2008-05-26 — Development A…**: Smti. Utpala Bezbaruah entered into a…
- **2008-07-08 — Development A…**: Smti. Aditi Bezbaruah entered into a…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 — Moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-14)

---

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/smti-aditi-bezbaruah-vs-mr-kamalesh-kumar-singhania-ors-company-appeal-55d3f99e