Lalit Sanduja vs Tourism Finance Corporation Of India ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Lalit Sanduja Suspended Board of Director Genesis Infratech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Raunak Satpathy, Advocate. For Respondents: Ms. Sanjukta, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Akshay Goel, Mr. Harsh Jadon, Advocates for R- 2. Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocate for Applicant in IA No.1763 of 2025.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

26.05.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the

NCLT, New Delhi, Court -IV by which while deciding IA No.383 of 2025, the

Adjudicating Authority has imposed cost of Rs.1 Lakh on the Corporate

Debtor.

2. An application was filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate

Debtor praying for stay of the e-auction proceeding which was initiated under

SARFAESI Act by the Tourism Finance Corporation of India. When the

Application came for hearing, the Appellant had requested the Court to permit

the Appellant to withdraw the application. However, the Adjudicating

Authority while permitting to withdraw the application, imposed cost of Rs.1

Cont'd.../ 2

Lakh observing that the Appellant has been taking different proceedings

which is nothing but forum shopping. On the said observation, which has

been made in Para 5 of the order, cost of Rs.1 Lakh has been imposed. Para

5 of the order is as follows:

"5. During the course of the arguments tendered by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant herein, it has been submitted by the said Counsel for the Corporate Debtor that they have approached the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking the same reliefs as the sale Notice for e-auction had been published in accordance with the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Counsel further submits that they have filed another application seeking the exact same reliefs before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi invoking their inherent powers to seek justice for their cause."

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the proceedings giving

rise to the present Appeal were initiated by the Financial Creditor under

Section 7 and the proceedings which was initiated by the Corporate Debtor

before the DRT where the e-auction was prayed to be stayed was under

SARFSESI Act.

4. Learned counsel for the Financial Creditor has also submitted that the

Financial Creditor has no objection with regard to deletion of the cost.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view

that although the Corporate Debtor has taken steps before the DRT

challenging the e-auction notice under SARFAEI Act and has also filed

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.436 of 2025 3

application for stay of e-auction before the Adjudicating Authority. The

observation of the Adjudicating Authority that the Corporate Debtor has

resorted to forum shopping cannot be accepted. Relief under DRT is relief

that are available under law to the Corporate Debtor to approach DRT for

staying proceeding undertaken under the SARFAESI Act and filing application

under Section 7 application was also for stay of the e-auction notice, which

was permitted to be withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid, there is no case for

imposing cost of Rs.1 Lakh when Appellant itself prayed to withdraw the

application. We dispose of the appeal deleting the cost of Rs.1 Lakh. Appeal

is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice N Sesha Sayee] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.436 of 2025