Col A Khanna Sm Retd vs Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited

[Arising out of Order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench in CP. No.71/241-242/PB/2020]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Col Ashish Khanna, (Retd.) ...Appellant

Versus

Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Ayush Khanna, with Col. A. Khanna, SM (Retd.) in-person Niji Sapra SFIO complainant For Respondents: Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Rai, Ms. Moha Paranjpe, Mr. Vinay Singh, Advocates

JUDGMENT

(8th September, 2025)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by

the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench adjourning the

matter to 09.10.2025. The Appellant who was Respondent No.18 in CP. No.71/241-

242/PB/2020 aggrieved by the aforesaid order has come up in this Appeal. It is useful

to extract the entire order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the NCLT, Principal Bench

which is as follows:-

"1. On 03.10.2024, the following order was passed:

2 "CA-403/2023, CA-387/2022, CA-364/2022, CA-480/2022, CA-01/2023, CA-45/2023, CA-88/2023, CA-123/2023, CA- 291/2023, CA-387/2023, CA-22/2024, CA-34/2024, Mr. Ashish Khanna, appeared through VC. We posed a question as to whether he has paid the cost of Rs. 50,000/-in terms of our earlier order dated 15.12.2023 for which he sent a bank demand draft dated 17.02.2024 to the NCLT. The said bank demand draft was returned to him vide letter dated 12.09.2024 requesting him to deposit the cost in appropriate manner. The copy of the letter dated 12.09.2024 was also sent to Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for Ashish Khanna in CA- 440/2022.

Today, we enquired whether the cost as directed by order dated 15.12.2023 was paid or not. Mr. Ashish Khanna states that he has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble NCLAT and the said appeal is still pending. He further states that he met Mr. Sanjay Shorey, DG, Ministry of Corporate Affairs in presence of RD, Gauhati and he was informed by the DG that he need not pay the cost as the NCLT has not decided his applications including the perjury application.

In view of the non-compliance of order dated 15.12.2023 and multiple proceedings initiated by Mr. Ashish Khanna which was earlier recorded in order dated 05.04.2024 and in view of the reasons recorded in our order dated 10.09.2024 in para nos. 21 & 22 in CA-90/PB/2024, all these applications stand adjourned for further hearing on 10.04.2025. CA-384/2023 We have heard Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant appearing physically who states that in view of certain allegations made by Mr. Ashish Khanna, he seeks some time to get instructions as to what is the stand of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and DG, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. At request, list the matter on 12.12.2024."

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 3

2. Thereafter, the matter was listed for 10.04.2025, which happened to be a holiday; therefore, the case is listed today, i.e., 24.04.2025.

3. Taking note of the various proceedings and orders passed and matters pending before the Hon'ble NCLAT, we defer further hearing. We also find that there is no urgency to hear the matter at this stage.

4. In view of the above, we are inclined to adjourn the matter to 09.10.2025.

5. Mr. Col A Khanna SM Retd, for the applicant, appeared through VC while travelling in a car and thereafter in person. He stated that there are proceedings before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

6. Ld. Counsel Mr. Prateek Kumar, appearing on behalf of the Respondent (Delhi Gymkhana Club), undertakes to file a status report of the proceedings before the Hon'ble NCLAT and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."

2. The order dated 24.04.2025 indicate that the NCLT has referred to its earlier

order dated 03.10.2024 which has been quoted in paragraph 1 of the order. Paragraph

1 of the order as noted above refers to an earlier order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the

NCLT, Principal Bench by which a cost was imposed of Rs.50,000/-. On 03.10.2024, it

was noted that it was enquired as to whether cost directed by order dated 15.12.2023

has been paid or not on which certain statements were made by the Appellant. In view

of the non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2023, the Court had adjourned the

applications to 10.04.2025 and thereafter by order dated 24.04.2025, adjourned the

matter to 09.10.2025. It was further noticed in paragraph 3 that the matter is pending

before the NCLAT which was also one of the reasons noticed for adjourning the matter

on 09.10.2025.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 4

3. Appellant appearing in person challenging the order dated 24.04.2025 submits

that all relevant orders passed by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court

arising out of CP No.71/241-242/PB/2020 was handed over to the Court which

indicate that nothing is pending in the NCLAT. It is submitted that against the order

dated 01.04.2022 passed by the NCLT in CP No.71 of 2020, Company Appeal (AT)

No.93 of 2022 was filed by the Major Atul Dev (Retd.) & Ors. and Company Appeal (AT)

No.141 of 2022 was filed by one Rajeev Sabharwal, both the Appeals were decided by

this Tribunal by judgment and order dated 21.10.2024. After judgment dated

21.10.2024 of this Tribunal deciding both the Company Appeals, Civil Appeal has

been filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Major Atul Dev & Ors. being Civil Appeal

No.395 of 2025 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.01.2025 has issued notice

returnable in six weeks. Further in Company Appeal (AT) No.93 of 2022 and Company

Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022, IA No.1262 of 2025 and IA No.1263 of 2025 were filed by

Delhi Gymkhana Club seeking certain reliefs which applications were dismissed by

this Tribunal on 28.03.2025 which indicate that nothing is pending arising out of the

order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the NCLT, Principal Bench in this Tribunal and in

paragraph 3 of the impugned order, Principal Bench has wrongly noticed that the

matters pending before the NCLAT. During submissions, Col. Ashish Khanna has

relied on order of this Tribunal dated 21.10.2024 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1195 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.6108 of

2023- "Orbit Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deepak Kishan Chhabria & Ors." as well as

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. &

Ors.- Criminal Appeal Nos.....of 2024 (@SLP(CRL.)Nos.........of 2024 @

Diary No.18885 of 2024". Appellant has also prayed that interim relief as

prayed in the Appeal be granted.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 5

4. Counsel appearing for Delhi Gymkhana Club has also appeared at the

time of hearing.

5. The order dated 24.04.2025 which is challenged in this Appeal is an

order adjourning the matter on 09.10.2025. NCLT Principal Bench has not

decided various applications as has been noticed in paragraph 1 of the order

which were earlier adjourned to 10.04.2025 and thereafter on 09.10.2025 by

the impugned order. One of the reasons noticed in paragraph 1 is that there is

non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2023 by which cost of Rs.50,000/-

was imposed on the Appellant. The reasons have been given in paragraph 1 by

the NCLT, Principal Bench for adjourning the proceedings to the following

effect:-

"In view of the non-compliance of order dated 15.12.2023 and multiple proceedings initiated by Mr. Ashish Khanna which was earlier recorded in order dated 05.04.2024 and in view of the reasons recorded in our order dated 10.09.2024 in para nos. 21 & 22 in CA-90/PB/2024, all these applications stand adjourned for further hearing on 10.04.2025"

6. A perusal of paragraph 1 of the order indicates that the NCLT, Principal

Bench was satisfied with non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2023 by

which cost was imposed and Appellant was directed to pay the cost. Other

reasons have been given also in paragraph as quoted above for adjournment.

Orders dated 05.04.2024 and 10.09.2024 which have been referred to not

being on record, the correctness of reasons mentioned therein cannot be gone

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 6

into by us. We, thus, are of the view that the reasons have been given by NCLT,

Principal Bench for adjourning all the applications to 09.10.2025.

7. Insofar as the observation in paragraph 3 that matters pending before

the NCLAT, we have noticed that Company Appeal (AT) No.93 of 2022 and

Company Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022 were finally decided by judgment of this

Tribunal dated 21.10.2024 against which order, Civil Appeal No.395 of 2025 has been

filed by Major Atul Dev in which Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notice on 27.01.2025

and the said Appeal is said to be still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In

Company Appeal (AT) No.93 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022, two

applications IA No.1262 of 2025 and IA No.1263 of 2025 were filed by Delhi

Gymkhana Club which were dismissed by this Tribunal by order dated 28.03.2025

which is brought on the record at Page 28 of the paper book. After dismissing IA

No.1262 of 2025 and IA No.1263 of 2025, nothing is pending before this Appellate

Tribunal against the order dated 01.04.2022 which was passed by the NCLT in CP No.

of 71 of 2020. The NCLT, Principal Bench thus, need to proceed further. After

taking note of the fact that insofar as order passed by the NCLT, Principal

Bench dated 01.04.2022 in CP No.71 of 2020, nothing is pending in NCLAT

and that may not be any reason for not proceeding further.

8. Now we come to the orders of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as relied by the Appellant in support of the Appeal. Appellant has relied

on the order of this Tribunal dated 21.10.2024. We while upholding the order

dated 01.04.2022 had issued various directions. As noted above, against the

order dated 21.10.2024, Civil Appeal No.395 of 2025 was filed before the Hon'ble

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 7

Supreme Court by Atul Dev & Ors. which is pending. We having finally decided

Company Appeal (AT) No.93 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022,

nothing more is needed to be observed by us with respect to said decision. The

directions which have been issued in the Appeal are part of the order.

9. The second judgment which has been relied by the Appellant is judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Orbit Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deepak Kishan Chhabria

& Ors." (supra) decided on 30.10.2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed in

the said judgment of earlier order dated 26.09.2023. In paragraph 6 of the order,

referring to the directions dated 26.09.2023, following was stated:-

"6. The above directions of this Court were in two parts. The first part which applied to the Scrutiniser contained a specific direction to the effect that in compliance with the previous order, the Scrutiniser shall proceed to declare the result of the AGM which was held on 29 September 2023. The second part, which was a direction to the NCLAT, was specifically to the effect that the NCLAT shall proceed to declare its judgment in the pending appeal after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the AGM has been declared."

10. A Contempt Petition was filed alleging violation of subsequent order dated

13.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the above context, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court decided the matter on 30.10.2023. Order of the NCLAT dated

13.10.2023 was also set aside. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above case was on its own fact and arose out of proceedings which were decided by

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 8

this Tribunal in Appeal arising out of Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The above judgment in no manner helps the Appellant in the facts of the present case.

11. Another judgment which has been relied by Counsel for the Appellant is

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. &

Ors." (supra). We, in our order dated 18.12.2024 passed in IA No.7617 of 2024

in IA No.5502 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) No.242 of 2024 which was an

application filed by the Appellant itself in an Appeal, had noticed the reliance

on said judgment by the Appellant in paragraph 7. Appellant in support of the

said application filed in the above Company Appeal (AT) No.242 of 2024 has

placed reliance on the judgment of "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. &

Ors." (supra) which was noticed in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment which is

as follows:-

"7. Company Appeal (AT) No.242 of 2024 which was filed by the Appellant was rejected on account of rejection of Delay Condonation Application filed in the Appeal for Condonation of Delay and result is that Appeal was not maintainable as barred by time. When Appeal which was filed by the Appellant under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been dismissed as barred by time on account of rejection of Delay Condonation Application. The present application IA No.7617 of 2024 prays for issuing certain directions and grant of reliefs on the pleadings as made in the application. The Appellant's appeal having been dismissed as barred by time, we fail to see that how any application after dismissal of the appeal as barred

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 9

by time can be entertained by this Tribunal. Appellant to support his submissions has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.- Criminal Appeal Nos.....of 2024 (@SLP(CRL.)Nos.........of 2024 @ Diary No.18885 of 2024". Reliance has been placed in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment which are as follows:-

"29. To create or to assist creating false documents and to use them as genuine knowing them to be false in the Court proceedings, to falsely implicate somebody in the false proceedings filed in the name of the person who had no knowledge whatsoever about the same are the acts attributable to the offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They are also acts of frauds committed not only on the person sought to be falsely implicated and on the person in whose name such false proceedings are filed without his knowledge and consent, but is a fraud committed on the Courts. No Court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud and no Court can allow its eyes to be closed to the fact that it is being used as an instrument of fraud. As held by this Court in V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors.

"The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 10

therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court."

30. The matter assumes serious concern when the Advocates who are the officers of the Court are involved and when they actively participate in the ill- motivated litigations of the unscrupulous litigants, and assist them in misusing and abusing the process of law to achieve their ulterior purposes."

8. There can be no dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. The aforesaid appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was filed challenging the judgment and order of the High Court in application under Section 482 CrPC where the High Court has allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings in respect of the Supplementary Chargesheet arising out of the case under Sections 363, 367, 376 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after entering into the merits of the case directed the matter to be handed over for the investigation to the CBI. The order and direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case was on the facts of the said case. The question regarding maintainability of the application in an appeal which has been dismissed as barred by time was not the subject matter of the issue, hence, the said judgment which was pronounced on the merits of the

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 11

case does not come to the aid of the Appellant in any manner in the present application."

12. We have already taken the view in the above case that there can be no

dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

"Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors." (supra). However, the order passed in

"Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors." was an order which arose from an

order of the High Court passed under Section 482 of the CrPC where High

Court has quashed the entire proceedings arising out of the case under

Sections 363, 367 and 376 of the IPC. The said judgment in no manner comes

to the aid of the Appellant in the present case. In the present case, the

application which has been filed by the Appellant has not yet been decided

finally and are still pending before the NCLT, Principal Bench.

13. Appellant also during the submissions has prayed for consideration of

the interim reliefs as prayed in the Appeal. Interim reliefs as prayed in the

Appeal are as follows:-

"a. In exercise of Powers under Sect-242 of CA-2013, direct UOI to remove President Mr M Sinha, prayed in un-opposed CA-01/2023.

b. Direct for implementation of 15.03.2022 NCLT order entitling appellant to SFIO investigation on AGM fraud."

14. We have already taken the view that the application filed by the

Appellant have been adjourned to 09.10.2025 and has not yet been decided by

the NCLT, Principal Bench on merits and further, we have observed that

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025 12

nothing is pending in this Tribunal arising out of the order dated 01.04.2022

passed in CP No.71 of 2020. We see no reason to grant any interim relief as

prayed in the Appeal by the Appellant. In prayer (a), Appellant has prayed for

direction under Section 242 to Union of India to remove President. It is open for

the Appellant to file any substantive application before the NCLNT, Principal

Bench for relief which is sought which cannot be considered as any interim

relief. Insofar as prayer (b) which is to direct for implementation of order dated

15.03.2022 of the NCLT. We noticed that applications making such prayers

have already been made by the Appellant before the NCLT, Principal Bench,

hence, the said also cannot be considered as an interim relief.

15. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that this Appeal

need to be disposed of with observation that nothing is pending in this

Appellate Tribunal arising out of the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the

NCLT Principal Bench in CP No.71 of 2020 and Principal Bench NCLT may

proceed to consider the application in accordance with law. The Appeal is

disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) New Delhi Anjali

Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2025