Gagandeep Singh vs Suraksha Realty Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1829 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party who has already sought and been refused a particular direction in an earlier application under the same proceedings cannot re-agitate the same prayer in a fresh application merely because a higher court has since issued notice in a separate appeal; the pendency of that appeal does not confer a right to file another application seeking the same relief.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Gagandeep Singh ...Appellant Versus Suraksha Realty Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sarwar Raza, Mr. Mohd. Waseem, Mr. Muhammad Zaid, Mr. Nabil Raza, Mr. Arnab Chakarbourty, Mr. Shreya Kumar, Mr. Soumya Kumar, Mr. S. Ahmed and Mr. Tabish Raza, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Ms. Nidhi Yadav and Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Advocates for R- 3.
Mr. Sagar Banal and Mr. Dhruv Parwal, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.10.2024 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel
appearing for the Respondent.
2. This Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 22.07.2024
passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench) by which I.A. 3264/2024 filed by the
Appellant has been dismissed.
3. The Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order has referred to the
earlier Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. 3371/2021, where
one of the Prayers made by the same Applicant was following:
"(iv) Direct the Resolution Applicant/ Respondents not to proceed with the delisting of the Public equity shareholding of the Corporate Debtor till the time the pendency of the instant case"
4. In the Application which has now been filed again the Applicant has
prayed for direction that the de-listing of shares until Civil Appeal No.
7412/2023 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has attained finality
which Prayer has already quoted in Para 1 of the Impugned Order.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that it does not dispute that
in the earlier Application he has prayed for Resolution Applicant not to
proceed with the delisting of the Public equity shareholding, which was
rejected. But the present Application was filed in view of the issuance of the
Notice by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7412/2023. The
Copy of the Order of hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.11.2023 is filed as
Annexure A-3 to the Appeal.
6. Learned Counsel Mr. Sumant Batra submits that the Resolution Plan
has already been implemented.
7. Be that as it may, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error
in rejecting the I.A. No. 3264/2024 filed by the Appellant.
8. The fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued Notice in Civil Appeal
No. 7412/2023 does not give any right to the Applicant to file another
Application making same prayer which he has made in I.A. 3371/2024.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly contended that cost of Rs. 1
Lakh be reduced. Considering the Prayer made by the Appellant, we reduce
the cost to Rs. 50,000/-.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1829 of 2024 2 of 3 We do not find any merit in the Appeal and the Order impugned is
affirmed. Appeal is dismissed subject to reduction of cost to Rs.50,000/-.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1829 of 2024 3 of 3
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