M/S. Mehar Bhoomi Bhawan Pvt Ltd vs Shashi Bhushan Prasad

IN THE MATTER OF: Mehar Bhoomi Bhawan Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known as Mehar Footwear Pvt. Ltd.) ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Shashi Bhushan Prasad, RP of Angad Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with I.P.S. Oberoy, R.K. Srivastava, Yash Tandon, Shivani Shrivastava and Harshit Chaudhary, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Nayar, Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Ms. Kheyali Singh and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for ACRE (CoC).

Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shruti Munjal, Ms. Heena Kochhar, Mr. Chetan Prakash Singh, Advocates for RP.

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, RP in Person.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

26.09.2025 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has been

filed against the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by which I.A. No.

3174 of 2025 filed by the Appellant has been dismissed, in the application

following prayers were made para 1 of the impugned order:

(A) Allow the present application, (B) Condone the delay of 43 days in furnishing the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1,54,00,000.00 (Rupees Once crore fifty-four lakh), (C) Condone the delay of 42 days in furnishing the unconditional Financial Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1,50,000,000.00 (Rupees one crore fifty lakh), and (D) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

Adjudicating Authority in para 4 of the order has made

following observations:

We note that while the said CoC meeting was held on 18.12.2019, the SRA for reasons best known to it, chose to file this IA only after a gap of almost six years.

Moreover, in our view, there is no provision of law empowering the Adjudicating Authority to grant approval of delay condonation in furnishing the performance bank guarantee/unconditional bank guarantee by the SRA. The Adjudicating Authority cannot expand its jurisdiction and step in where CoC has to take the decision in their own discretion. In the light of the above observations we do not find any case for indulgence.

When the Adjudicating Authority has taken a view that it cannot expand

its jurisdiction and step where CoC take a decision in their own discretion, we

are of the view that the application was required to be disposed of with the

said observation and it was not to be dismissed on merits.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that CoC has already condone

the delay which is being disputed by the Respondent. In view of the aforesaid,

2 of 3 para 7 of the impugned order is deleted and the appeal is disposed of as

directed that I.A. No. 3174 of 2025 shall stand disposed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Abhishek/nn

3 of 3