Eraaya Lifespaces Limited vs Sunil Aggarwal
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 75 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A recorded concession by counsel made without proper instructions, and not reflecting the party's considered position, is not binding on the party such that the Tribunal must treat the interim prayers as conceded; where the appellant has shown that the earlier recording was inadvertent, the interim prayers must be heard and decided on their merits, uninfluenced by the earlier recording.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Eraaya Lifespaces Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Sunil Aggarwal & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Nandwanii, Mr. Viksit Arora, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Ms. Aakriti Gupta, Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
26.03.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated
06.03.2025 passed in C.A. No. 52 of 2025.
2. It is the submission of Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant on
13.02.2025, the matter was taken upon mentioning by the Ld. NCLT on a
petition under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 two interim
prayers were pressed viz. (a) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 14 to maintain
Status Quo with regard to all transactions in regard to the Offering Circular
dated 23.08.2024, till the pendency of the present petition. (b) Direct the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 14 to maintain Status Quo with regard to the composition
of the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1 company, as on date, till the
pendency of the present petition.
3. It is submitted on that date the Ld. NCLT had also recorded the
submissions of learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant herein that the appellant
shall maintain status quo till further order.
2
4. However immediately, thereafter, when the copy of the order was
obtained by the Appellant, the Appellant moved an application under Rule 11
of the NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking clarification/modification of order dated
13.02.2025.
5. It is the submission of learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant the
appellant is aggrieved of recording of submission (wrongly given), of its learned
Sr. Counsel qua interim prayers (a) and (b) and it was only because of
connectivity problems, proper instructions could not be given by the Advocate
on Record to the learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant on that day, since the
Advocate of Record was travelling. Thus inadvertently wrong statement was
made by the learned Sr. Counsel qua both interim prayers viz. (a) and (b).
6. Even an application for clarification/modification of the said order
dated 13.02.2025 has now been dismissed on 06.03.2025 by the impugned
order, as under:
"We went through all the grounds taken in the petition. It is difficult to derive any meaning out of those grounds. However, the Counsel for the Applicant submits that he does not want to get the order modified/corrected/rectified. Rather he wanted that the order in question is re-phrased in certain manner. We fail to understand the purpose of such rephrasing or rewording he is seeking. Moreover, the application fails to disclose the manner in which the order needs to be rephrased and the reasoning for the same. In our view there are no grounds to interfere in an order passed by this Tribunal on merits after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The application appears to be without substance and is hereby dismissed."
7. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent appears on advance notice
and submits he has no issues if the interim prayer (a) may be contested on
merits on the date fixed i.e. 03.04.2025. It is the submission of learned Sr. 3
Counsel for the Appellant the concessions, if any, given by the Ld. Sr. Counsel
for appellant were only till the next date of hearing viz. 03.04.2025. Heard.
8. It is also the submission on behalf of the Appellant the order dated
13.02.2025 is not on merits and in fact was based upon inadvertent
concession given by the learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant herein, without
proper instructions, though, this submission is disputed by the learned
counsel for the respondent herein.
9. In the circumstances, let the interim prayers (a) and (b) as recorded in
the order dated 13.02.2025 be heard on merits; be decided and disposed of
being uninfluenced by recordings in its earlier order dated 06.03.2025.
10. We dispose of the appeal in terms of the above. Pending application(s)
are also disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
R.N./Manu
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free