Dev Land & Housing Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal

IN THE MATTER OF: Dev Land & Housing Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Ayush Agarwala, Mr. Pravanh Jha, Advocates

For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.12.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging an order dated 22.04.2024

passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal,

Mumbai Bench, Court - IV) in I.A. No. 1832 of 2024.

3. The appellant is a successful auction purchaser of the asset of the CD

in liquidation which commenced on 21.03.2023. After sale of the only asset

of the CD, the appellant filed an application praying for certain relief and

concessions. The prayers (a) to (q) are at page 138 - 142 of the appeal.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when

the application came for the consideration, the Adjudicating Authority

observes that prayers made in the application are too wide and general. The

appellant counsel at that time had no instructions to withdraw, hence he

sought for time and the order was reserved.

5. Subsequently, the counsel filed a praecipe on 26.04.2024 paying for

withdrawal of the application.

6. When this appeal was taken for consideration, the liquidator appeared

and submitted that the liquidation has already been discharged, while issuing

notice in present company appeal, following order was passed:

"I.A. No. 4350 of 2024 This is an application filed for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal, grounds given in the application is that the appellant applied for certified copy of the order which yet not been made available hence the delay was caused in filing the appeal.

We have issued notice on delay condonation application but no Reply has been filed.

Sufficient cause has been shown in the application, delay is condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1215 of 2024 Ld. Counsel for the liquidator has submitted that the liquidator has already been discharged since the dissolution has been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal raises issues which needs to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority and the liquidator's presence may not be necessary for such adjudication. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has already filed a pursis for withdrawal of the earlier application which was allowed but Adjudicating Authority without noticing their withdrawal has passed the impugned order rejecting the application. Issue Notice.

Reply, if any, may be filed before the next date. List on 12.09.2024."

7. On the next date this Tribunal asked for a report from the NCLT, report

has been received by the NCLAT stating that no praecipe was received in the

NCLT and no receipt was issued.

8. The appellant has filed an objection to the report along with which an

affidavit of Mr. Amish Shailesh Gandhi, the advocate who appeared has been

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1215 of 2024 2 of 4 filed. The counsel has filed his affidavit, where counsel who appeared has

made following statement in paragraphs 3, 4 & 5:

"3. I say that thereafter I received instructions from the client to withdraw the subject matter. Due to shortage of time and taking into consideration that the subject matter was reserved for Orders, I had mentioned the matter on 26th April 2024 as and by way of moving a praecipe and sought permission to withdraw the subject application.

4. I say that the Hon'ble members of the NCLT, Mumbai, after enquiring with the court master to was pleased to allow this request and directed the court master to mark the matter was withdrawn.

Consequently, the court master made a noting to this effect that was also made in the cause list maintained by the court master. Below is a copy of the image of the cause list of the maintained by the Court Officer. ...

5. I, bona fide believe that the video footage of the proceedings of NCL T, Mumbai on 26th April 2024 maintained as a part of the Hon 'ble Tribunal's records will corroborate that the matter was mentioned and permitted to be withdrawn."

9. In paragraph 4, the image of the cause list maintained by the Court

Officer has also been captured in which the present matter was the first

matter.

10. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

11. We have also looked into the prayers in the application I.A No. 1832 of

2024, reliefs are too wide and general and could not have been granted. The

events which took thereafter as stated in the affidavit of the counsel clearly

supports the case that the appellant subsequently filed a praecipe for

withdrawal of the application. We have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit

filed by the advocate, who has submitted that prayer was made to withdraw

the application. The Adjudicating Authority however, proceeded to dismiss

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1215 of 2024 3 of 4 the application on merits. The reasons for rejection have been given in

paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order, which are as follows:

"6. The Liquidator conducted thee-auction of the said property was sold as a going concern on "As is where is basis", "As is what is basis" and "Whatever there is basis" and "No recourse basis".

7. Heard both Counsel. The bench observes that the auction was conducted as a going concern as on "As is where is basis", "As is what is basis"

and "Whatever there is basis" and "No recourse basis" conditions and the prospective bidders vide e-auction sale notification were advised to make their own independent enquiries and to do due diligence. The sale certificate has been issued by the Liquidator. Therefore, at this stage, this bench is not inclined to pass any direction/orders against the third-parties as prayed by the applicant. Hence, this IA is devoid of merits. Therefore, this IA-1832/2024 is hereby dismissed."

12. We are of the view that in the facts of the present case ends of justice

be served in setting aside the order dated 22.04.2024 with liberty to appellant

to file afresh I.A. praying for relief and concession which may be considered

and decided by Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. We make it

clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the application.

It is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider and decide the same in

accordance with law.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) rashmi/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1215 of 2024 4 of 4