A notable judicial disagreement surfaced on July 29, 2026, within a high-profile corporate insolvency appeal involving Arc Research And Development Centre and the Liquidator of Adya Oils And Chemicals. Justice N. Seshasayee, serving as the Judicial Member, formally recorded a dissenting opinion against the majority verdict drafted by Technical Member Shri Arun Baroka and concurred with by Technical Member Shri Indevar Pandey. The legal proceedings highlight complex property rights and procedural disputes under the insolvency framework.
According to official reports, the underlying dispute stems from an initial order issued on January 22, 2025, by the National Company Law Tribunal in Mumbai. The Mumbai Bench had previously adjudicated on an interlocutory application filed by the liquidator under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Through that decision, the tribunal declared an easement of way by prescription running directly through the property belonging to the appellant.
Official court documents indicate that the appeal challenges the validity of granting prescriptive easement rights during corporate liquidation proceedings. While the majority bench supported the tribunal’s earlier findings, Justice Seshasayee expressed distinct reservations regarding the legal basis of the decision. The comprehensive review by the judicial member sets the stage for a critical examination of how property easements interact with liquidation mandates.
Legal analysts suggest that the divergence in judicial opinions could significantly influence future interpretations of property access rights during asset liquidation. Industry stakeholders and legal practitioners are closely monitoring the proceedings to understand the broader implications for corporate debtors and secured creditors alike. Clearer precedents in this domain will likely shape how liquidators handle encumbrances and third-party property claims moving forward.
Observers will watch for the final formal issuance of the dissenting judgment and any subsequent appeals or legal challenges launched by the affected parties. Further judicial scrutiny from higher appellate forums may become necessary to resolve the conflicting interpretations regarding prescriptive easements in insolvency cases. Readers should follow upcoming judicial updates as the legal framework continues to evolve.
Disclaimer: This article is published for general news and informational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to verify important information from official sources. The publisher shall not be responsible for any loss or inconvenience arising from reliance on the information published.
