Honest Shelters Pvt Ltd vs Ravi Prakash Ganti & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1 September 2026

CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1595 of 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party who does not challenge an interlocutory order directing that a better buyer be considered cannot revive its grievance against that order by appealing a later order that merely adjourns or defers consideration of the same matter. An order that simply defers applications, without any merits determination, does not itself give rise to a cause of action sufficient to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and an appeal resting on such an order is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1595 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ravi Prakash Ganti & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Ms. Khyati Khemka, Mr. Sagar Thakkar, Ms. Krishna Saklani and Ms. Kavya Tekriwal, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ravi Prakash Ganti, Advocate for R2/ Liquidator. Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Mr. Samar Singh and Mr. Naman Gowda, Advocates for R3.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1602 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ravi Prakash Ganti & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1607 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ravi Prakash Ganti & Ors. ...Respondents

2 of 5

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1595,1602, 1606, 1607 & 1608 of 2026 WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1608 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ravi Prakash Ganti & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Ms. Khyati Khemka, Mr. Sagar Thakkar, Ms. Krishna Saklani and Ms. Kavya Tekriwal, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Ravi Prakash Ganti, Advocate for R2/ Liquidator. Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Mr. Samar Singh and Mr. Naman Gowda, Advocates for R3.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.09.2026: All these five company appeals, though are based upon

identical facts and marginally on an identical question of law, except for the

fact that they are arising out of different company petitions, which were

numbered as C.P. (IB) Nos. 3164/2018, 3160/2018, 3162/2018, 3159/2018

and 3163/2018.

2. The appellant before this Tribunal has been determined as to be an H1

bidder, in pursuance to the bidding process that had culminated in his

favour. But, however, after culmination of same the expected letter of intent

was not issued as it was expected by the appellant, as per the contents of

Clause-12.1 of the Process Information, matter remained pending.

3 of 5

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1595,1602, 1606, 1607 & 1608 of 2026

3. In the proceedings of the aforesaid company petitions an order came to

be passed on 19.06.2026, which reads as under :

"ORDER Regarding the additional affidavit, the erstwhile promoter has raised an objection that flats were sold at the lesser price. We are of this view, let the better buyer brought in by the promoters be considered in accordance with law.

Report will be considered on the next date of hearing.

List this matter for further consideration on 24.07.2026."

4. Its express that, let a better buyer be brought by the promoters and his

offer be considered in accordance with law. Admittedly, and as per the

records too, the appellant did not participate in those proceedings of

19.06.2026, rather he himself has chosen not to put a challenge of this order

of considering the issue of inviting the better buyers, but by preferring of this

appeal the appellant cannot be permitted to revive his cause qua the order of

19.06.2026, which he otherwise have waived of his rights of challenge, out of

his conduct by not putting a challenge to the same and by putting a challenge

to the impugned order of 24.07.2026 under challenge in all these company

appeals.

5. The appellant is trying to read the order dated 24.07.2026, as if it is in

an extension of the earlier order dated 19.06.2026 for the purposes of inviting

of the fresh buyers. Infact, the interpretation given by the appellant cannot be

4 of 5

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1595,1602, 1606, 1607 & 1608 of 2026 read so far as from the order itself. It simpliciter observes with reference to

the order of 19.06.2026, without remarking upon anything on the merits of

the matter and the applications have been deferred to be heard on

27.08.2026.

6. This order of 24.07.2026 itself is not a cause of action, rather it cannot

be permitted to be taken as to be an avenue for the appellant to revive back

his action due to his inactions of non-challenge as against the order of

19.06.2026 which he has acceded too. Since independently the order of

24.07.2026 does not give any cause of action for the appellant to invoke the

appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 61 of the Code, therefore

the appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) harleen/RR

5 of 5

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1595,1602, 1606, 1607 & 1608 of 2026

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