Aditya Raheja vs Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd & ...

Aditya Raheja ...Appellant

Vs.

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1916 of 2026 In the matter of:

Aditya Raheja ...Appellant

Vs.

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: Appellant: Mr. Khalid Israr, Mr. Akash Agarwal, Advocates Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra, Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for R-1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 07.10.2026 - Before we deal with the conduct of the appellant, in the

instant company appeal, we will have to refer to the earlier proceedings. The

appellant is already a party as an appellant to one of these proceedings and

has a knowledge of the other.

2. It has been informed and argued by the learned Counsel for the

respondent mentioning thereof that the parties have been in dispute in

Company Appeal No.212 of 2024, wherein the appellant No.2 is said to be

instrumental in the proceedings, which is the subject matter of consideration 2

in the said company appeal, which was arising out of the Order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority, as a consequence of which, while considering the

implication of Section 60(5), had proceeded to issue certain directions as

contained in para - 21 of the said Judgement. A detailed reference of the same

is not required, but if the above extract is taken only for the purposes to show

that the parties are already before this Tribunal in other appeals. There is yet

another Company Appeal bearing Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1815 of 2026

that has been preferred by the appellant himself as against the impugned

order therein i.e. of 03.09.2026 as rendered in I.A. (IBC) (Plan) No.41 of 2026

in C.P.(IB) No.290 of 2023, where the resolution plan submitted by Shree

Naman Developers Pvt. Ltd. had been approved and the I.A. No.2515 of 2026

filed by the suspended board had been rejected. Besides that, there is another

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.165 of 2024 in which Mr. Aditya Raheja is an

applicant in an appeal preferred by Deepak Raheja. This too attributes

knowledge of the appellant, which has been concealed to be brought on record

in the present appeals.

3. The pendency of the above two matters clearly demonstrates that the

appellant was conscious of those proceedings, but yet he never felt it as an

obligation upon him to disclose the said facts in the appeal in question, where

his application for registering a complaint under Section 340 to be read with

Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been rejected.

4. Today Aditya Raheja is before us expressing his grievance as against

the impugned order of 03.09.2026 by virtue of, which his I.A (IBC) No.2724 of

2026, that was preferred in CP (IB) No.291 of 2023, has been rejected. If we 3

consider the application itself, on which the Order has been passed rejecting

his complaint, as a matter of fact, the application preferred by the appellant

was for the purposes of drawing of a proceedings under Section 340, to be

read with Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for

initiation of a criminal prosecution for punishing the respondent.

5. What is surprising is that in any judicial or criminal proceedings,

invariably in the shape of any complaint, at least the complainant is

mandatorily required to disclose his parentage and his identity too, as to what

nexus he has got with the set of allegations, being levelled by him which are

part of complaint, because of which he is invoking the exercise of the

jurisdiction under Section 340 to be read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, for implicating a person complained of committing an

act of perjury.

6. In the application thus preferred by the applicant in June, 2026,

surprisingly, the appellant does not disclose his parentage and further he

even does not disclose his nexus and relation, with the issue as it has been

narrated in his application preferred by the appellant before the learned

Tribunal. This application came up before the learned Tribunal and the

learned Tribunal by the impugned order of 03.09.2026 has rejected the same.

7. There had been a misconduct on part of the appellant because of the

fact that, the effect of the impugned order of 03.09.2026 would have been only

consequential only leading to the rejection of his application I.A. IBC No.2724

of 2026, wherein he has sought a prayer to initiate a proceedings under

Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4

The consequential effect of the rejection of the complaint would be that there

was a denial to initiate the proceedings under Section 340 to be read with

Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Denial of the same and upon

a challenge being put to it, at an appropriate stage, may not immediately

result into issuance of a direction or initiation of prosecution against the

respondent, even without hearing them.

8. Yet, the appellant misconducted himself, when he made a mention

before the Hon'ble Officiating Chairperson by wrongly portraying the urgency

and mentioning that "plan will get implemented and apprehension that third

party right will be created" as far as this exigency, which has been expressed

by the appellant in his format placed before the Hon'ble Officiating

Chairperson to take the appeal out of turn, it has got no nexus at all to the

subject involved with the prosecution, which he has sought Section 340 to be

read with Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It means that the

appellant intends to somehow maliciously prosecute the respondent for one

reason or the another in spite of being aware of the fact that his own appeal,

against rejection of plan is pending consideration and that too when the

earlier perjury application too upon its rejection is pending consideration at

an appellate stage, which he has never attempted to argue.

9. In all judicial propriety, he requires to be prosecuted under Section 248

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, for drawing a malicious prosecution. Owing

to the fact that the appellant has not been fair in his conduct and had been

portraying his case before this Tribunal by misleading the facts in his

pleadings and apparent concealment, the company appeal itself deserves to 5

be dismissed with a heavy cost of Rs.5 lakhs to be deposited in the Prime

Minister's Relief Fund.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) rs/ravi