Madhav Saran Agarwal & Anr & Ors vs Monika Ghei

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1409 of 2025 (Arising out of the Order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court - II, in I.A. No. 723 (ND) OF 2025 IN CP (IB) No. 334 (ND)/ 2018)

IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Madhav Saran Agarwal Successful Resolution Applicant Msx Mall Private Limited R/o - D-88, Sector 26, Noida- U.P. Email: garimagupta1207@Gmail.Com ...Appellant No.1 2. Alka Agarwal Successful Resolution Applicant Msx Mall Private Limited R/o - D-88, Sector 26, Noida- U.P. Email: garimagupta1207@Gmail.Com ...Appellant No.2 Versus Monika Ghei Wife Of Mr. Rajya Wardhan Ghei R/o- H. No. 874, Sector-17 Faridabad-Haryana-121002 Email: raiyawardhanghei@gmail.com ...Respondent Present: For Appellants Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Ms. Arani Mukherjee & Mr. Vaibhav Dayma, Advocates.

Page 1 of 28 For Respondent Mr. Sandeep Thukral & Ms. Sana Thukral, Advocates

JUDGEMENT

(30.03.2026)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants i.e., Madhav Saran

Agarwal and Alka Agarwal who are the Successful Resolution Applicants of

MSX Mall Private Limited under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 ('Code') against the Impugned Order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the

National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court - II ('Adjudicating

Authority') in I.A. No. 723 (ND) of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 334 (ND)/ 2018).

Monika Ghei wife of Mr. Rajya Wardhan Ghei who is a Commercial Space Buyer

is the Respondent herein.

2. The Appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed

an error in passing the impugned order dated 18.08.2025. The order directs the

Successful Resolution Applicant to execute a registered conveyance deed for

Shop Nos. HL-41, 42 and 43 in favour of the Respondent within two weeks and

further directs that rent received from M/s Haldiram Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. be

credited to the Respondent's account within four weeks. This direction has been

issued even though the Respondent has admittedly not paid the balance

consideration for the enhanced area as required under the approved resolution

plan.

Page 2 of 28

3. The Appellants contended that the entire transaction began with the

original allotment letter dated 04.09.2014 issued by the Corporate Debtor in

favour of Mr. Sanjay Mehta. Under this allotment, a super area of 1,250 sq. ft.

was allotted at a total consideration of Rs. 51,00,000/-. The said unit was later

transferred to the Respondent vide transfer letter dated 12.09.2016. At that stage,

the Respondent stepped into the shoes of the original allottee with the same rights

and obligations.

4. The Appellants submitted that a commercial dispute later arose between

the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent. To resolve the same, the parties

executed a detailed settlement agreement dated 30.04.2018. Under this

settlement, the original allotment of 1,250 sq. ft. was expressly cancelled. In its

place, a fresh allotment letter dated 30.04.2018 was issued for an enhanced super

area of 1,404 sq. ft. at the mutually agreed rate of Rs. 4,400 per sq. ft. (all

inclusive). The Respondent gave her explicit consent to adjust past rental arrears

against the additional area and undertook to pay the differential consideration for

the extra 154 sq. ft. at the said rate.

5. The Appellants contended that despite the clear terms of the settlement

agreement and the fresh allotment letter, the Respondent has till date failed to

make any payment whatsoever for the enhanced area of 154 sq. ft. This non-

payment continues even after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was

admitted on 09.07.2018 and even after the resolution plan was approved on

03.04.2024. The Respondent herself admitted this unpaid liability in her email

Page 3 of 28 dated 08.08.2024 sent to the Monitoring Committee, wherein she specifically

asked for a demand note only for the increased area.

6. The Appellants submitted that the Committee of Creditors, after due

deliberation, approved the resolution plan submitted by the Appellants with an

overwhelming 89.85% voting share. The Adjudicating Authority thereafter

approved the same plan vide order dated 03.04.2024. Clause 11.4.3.1 of the

approved plan is crystal clear. It states that 926 commercial space buyers,

including the Respondent, shall receive possession and registration only after they

pay the full balance principal amount as per their respective allotment letters, all

registration charges including stamp duty and UPSIDC fees, and power back-up

charges at Rs. 20,000 per KVA with mandatory load of 2 KVA per 100 sq. ft.

7. The Appellants contended that the approved resolution plan further

provides that in case of excess area (as happened here from 1,250 sq. ft. to 1,404

sq. ft.), the buyer must pay the additional amount at the basic selling price

mentioned in the provisional allotment. Registration is made subject to complete

payment and clearance of all dues. The plan does not permit registration on any

other condition.

8. The Appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 has

directly contradicted this binding clause. The Adjudicating Authority has held

that "non-payment of the charges would be no ground to delay the execution of

the document". This observation effectively rewrites the approved resolution plan

and grants the Respondent a benefit that was never contemplated by the CoC.

Page 4 of 28

9. The Appellants contended that once a resolution plan is approved under

Section 31 of the Code, it becomes binding on every stakeholder, including the

Respondent. The Adjudicating Authority has no power to modify or dilute its

commercial terms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard

Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Limited, (2022) 1 SCC 401

has clearly held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the

commercial wisdom of the CoC or substitute any term of the approved plan.

10. The Appellants submitted that the same principle was reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited

v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531. The Court observed that the

commercial wisdom of the majority of creditors is paramount and the

Adjudicating Authority's role is limited only to checking whether the plan meets

the requirements of Section 30(2). It cannot rewrite distribution or payment

conditions.

11. The Appellants contended that in K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank,

(2019) 12 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that the

Adjudicating Authority is not a court of equity and does not possess plenary

powers. It cannot reverse the collective business decision of the CoC merely

because one allottee feels aggrieved. The Respondent, being only one member of

the class of commercial space buyers, cannot be allowed to override the decision

taken by 89.85% of the voting creditors.

Page 5 of 28

12. The Appellants submitted that allowing the Respondent to obtain

registration without paying the differential amount for the extra 154 sq. ft. at Rs.

4,400 per sq. ft. would create serious practical difficulties. Once the conveyance

deed is executed and registered, the Successful Resolution Applicant will lose all

leverage to recover the admitted unpaid sum. This would cause huge financial

prejudice to the Appellants and defeat the very purpose of the resolution process.

13. The Appellants contended that the impugned order will also open the

floodgates. Other defaulting commercial space buyers who have not paid their

balance amounts will immediately approach the Adjudicating Authority with

similar applications. This will lead to chaos and make the implementation of the

approved resolution plan practically impossible, as the plan is funded on the

assumption that all buyers will clear their pending dues before registration.

14. The Appellants submitted that the Respondent had earlier invoked

arbitration during the moratorium period declared on 09.07.2018. The arbitral

tribunal passed an order dated 17.12.2018 directing M/s Haldiram Ethnic Foods

Pvt. Ltd. to release rent directly to the Respondent from January 2019 onwards.

This order was passed in clear violation of the moratorium and without any leave

from the Adjudicating Authority.

15. The Appellants contended that this Appellate Tribunal, in its order dated

07.01.2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 07 of 2019, had expressly

directed that although proceedings may continue, the arbitral award shall not be

given effect during the moratorium. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.03.2019

Page 6 of 28 also recorded the Respondent's undertaking that she would not enforce the

arbitral order without prior permission of the NCLT. Despite these clear

directions, the Respondent continued to receive rent without obtaining any leave.

16. The Appellants submitted that the direction in the impugned order to credit

rent from April 2024 onwards further perpetuates this illegality. Clause

11.4.3.1(iii) of the approved resolution plan clearly states that buyers of virtual

space in the Haldiram area shall receive rent directly only after registration and

only after full payment of all dues.

17. The Appellants contended that under applicable laws and the terms of the

allotment, a registered conveyance deed can be executed only after the builder

issues a "no dues" certificate. Without payment of the balance consideration for

the enhanced area and other charges, no such certificate can be issued. The

impugned order bypasses this mandatory requirement and directs registration in

two weeks, which is contrary to law.

18. The Appellants submitted that the resolution plan approved on 03.04.2024

has superseded all earlier orders, including the Adjudicating Authority order

dated 26.11.2018 and the arbitral order dated 17.12.2018. Any direction for rent

payment or registration that contradicts the approved plan is impermissible under

Section 31 of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate this

settled legal position.

19. Concluding his arguments, the Appellants requested this Appellate

Tribunal to set aside the Impugned Order and allow the present appeal.

Page 7 of 28

20. Per contra, the Respondent refuted all the averments of the Appellants

treating these as baseless and misleading.

21. The Respondent submitted that the Appellants, having already received the

entire sale consideration for the virtual space admeasuring 1,404 sq. ft. through

adjustment of withheld rent, have filed this Appeal merely to delay the execution

of the registered conveyance deed and to continue unjustly retaining the rental

income belonging to the Respondent.

22. The Respondent contended that the Appellants have hidden the fact that the

price for the additional 154 sq. ft. (1,404 sq. ft. minus 1,250 sq. ft.) was fully paid

and acknowledged by them in 2018 itself, and that no further payment remains

due from the Respondent.

23. The Respondent submitted that the Appellants, who were the erstwhile

Directors of the Corporate Debtor (MSX Mall Pvt. Ltd.) and are now the

Successful Resolution Applicants, have themselves placed on record documents

which conclusively prove receipt of full consideration. The Settlement

Agreement dated 30.04.2018 and the New Allotment Letter dated 30.04.2018

explicitly record that the arrears of rent for 18 months amounting to Rs. 8,10,000/-

were adjusted against the price of the enhanced area calculated at Rs. 6,77,600/-

(@ Rs. 4,400 per sq. ft. for 154 sq. ft.), leaving an excess of Rs. 1,32,400/- which

was retained by the Appellants using their dominant position.

24. The Respondent contended that the Corporate Debtor had withheld the

Respondent's proportionate rent of Rs. 45,000 per month for 18 consecutive

Page 8 of 28 months preceding 30.04.2018, thereby unjustly enriching itself to the tune of Rs.

8,10,000/-. When the super area was re-measured at 1,404 sq. ft. and a demand

of Rs. 6,77,600/- was raised for the additional 154 sq. ft., the Respondent, being

a senior citizen dependent on rental income for livelihood, was coerced under

duress to agree to adjustment of the entire withheld rent against the said demand,

resulting in the Appellants gobbling up the surplus amount of Rs. 1,32,400/-.

25. The Respondent submitted that the New Allotment Letter dated 30.04.2018

issued on the same day as the Settlement Agreement categorically states that the

full and final consideration for the entire 1,404 sq. ft. virtual space stands paid

through adjustment of arrears of rent and that nothing else is due and payable by

the Respondent. The said letter further declares the allotment as "firm and final"

with the area and location being final.

26. The Respondent contended that the Appellants themselves admitted before

the Adjudicating Authority during the hearing of I.A. No. 723 of 2025 that no

further payment is due towards the enhanced area, and this admission stands

recorded in the impugned order dated 18.08.2025. The approved Resolution Plan

dated 03.04.2024 also acknowledges the Respondent as owner of 1,404 sq. ft.

having made full and final payment, contrary to the Appellants' present fraudulent

contention that payment was received only for 1,250 sq. ft.

27. The Respondent submitted that the Appellants obtained an ex-parte stay on

10.09.2025 by suppressing the fact that the Adjudicating Authority had already

recorded their admission of receipt of complete payment. Notice had not even

Page 9 of 28 been issued to the Respondent on that date, rendering the stay order obtained by

concealment and misrepresentation.

28. The Respondent contended that she was compelled to file Contempt

Petition No. 8 of 2025 for wilful violation of the orders dated 26.11.2018,

07.01.2019 and 17.12.2018 directing release of rent. The said petition was

disposed of in terms of the impugned order dated 18.08.2025. The Appellants

have deliberately omitted to mention this contempt petition in the Appeal, further

evidencing suppression of facts.

29. The Respondent submitted that the virtual shops HL-41, 42 and 43 form

part of larger virtual space GF-112 which was pre-leased to M/s Haldiram Ethnic

Foods Pvt. Ltd. The lease rent was received by the Corporate Debtor and

proportionately credited to the respective owners, including the Respondent. A

No Dues Certificate dated 23.06.2014 had already been issued in favour of the

predecessor allottee Mr. Sanjay Mehta, and the transfer in favour of the

Respondent was duly endorsed by the Corporate Debtor.

30. The Respondent contended that after admission of CIRP on 09.07.2018,

the Resolution Professional again stopped crediting the Respondent's rent,

compelling her to file CA No. 615 of 2018. The Adjudicating Authority vide order

dated 26.11.2018 held that the rent accruing to owners who have made full

payment is outside the purview of moratorium under Section 14 of the Code and

directed the Resolution Professional to release the same, keeping it in an escrow

account initially and disbursing after verification.

Page 10 of 28

31. The Respondent submitted that the said order dated 26.11.2018 was upheld

by this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 07.01.2019 in Company Appeal (AT)

(Insolvency) No. 07 of 2019, which reproduced the dictum of the Adjudicating

Authority and declined to interfere. Simultaneously, the Arbitral Tribunal vide

order dated 17.12.2018 directed release of rent at Rs. 45,000 per month from

January 2019 onwards, taking cognizance of the order of the Adjudicating

Authority.

32. The Respondent contended that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order

dated 12.03.2019 in ARB.A. No. 01/2019 recorded the Resolution Professional's

statement that the directions of the Adjudicating Authority shall be complied with,

following which rent was credited to the Respondent's account from the escrow

account maintained by the Resolution Professional.

33. The Respondent submitted that even after approval of the Resolution Plan

on 03.04.2024, the Monitoring Committee and Successful Resolution Applicants

again withheld rent from April 2024 onwards in flagrant violation of the earlier

binding orders. When the Respondent approached them for execution of the

conveyance deed and release of rent, she was falsely told that payment for the

enhanced area was still due, despite the documents on record showing complete

adjustment and payment.

34. The Respondent contended that she had no option but to file I.A. No. 723

of 2025 seeking execution of the registered conveyance deed in her favour, direct

credit of rent from April 2024 onwards, and restraint on allotment to any third

Page 11 of 28 party. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the Settlement Agreement,

the New Allotment Letter, the Appellants' admission, the earlier binding orders,

and the Respondent's willingness to pay power back-up charges as per the

Resolution Plan, rightly directed execution of the conveyance deed within two

weeks and release of rent within four weeks.

35. The Respondent submitted that she is ready and willing to pay any

electricity or power back-up charges strictly in terms of the approved Resolution

Plan. She has already paid Rs. 55,000/- towards power back-up charges earlier

and has no objection to making any further payment as per the plan, as expressly

recorded in the impugned order dated 18.08.2025.

36. The Respondent contended that the Appellants' entire case is built on the

false premise that the Respondent is a defaulter, whereas the documents filed by

the Appellants themselves, their admission before the Adjudicating Authority, and

the Resolution Plan conclusively prove that full consideration for 1,404 sq. ft.

stands paid. The citations relied upon by the Appellants regarding commercial

wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and binding nature of the Resolution Plan

are wholly inapplicable, as the impugned order does not modify the plan but

merely enforces its true terms after verifying full payment by the Respondent.

37. The Respondent submitted that the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 is a

well-reasoned, speaking order passed after due appreciation of facts and does not

cause any prejudice to the Appellants. On the contrary, allowing the Appeal would

Page 12 of 28 enable the Appellants to continue their unjust enrichment by retaining both the

sale consideration already received and the rent belonging to the Respondent.

38. Concluding arguments, the Respondent regards this Appellate Tribunal to

dismiss the Appeal with costs.

Findings

39. Having noted the rival contentions of both the parties, we note that the

Appellant has raised few issues i.e., whether the Adjudicating Authority could

pass the directions to Appellant as SRA against the term of approved Resolution

Plan which has attained the finality. The Appellant has also challenged the

Impugned Order which allowed the Respondent to execute registration document

without payment of amount due to the Appellant in terms of approved Resolution

Plan dated 03.04.2024. The Appellant also raised the issue regarding interference

with the Commercial Wisdom of the Corporate Debtor and other related issues.

40. The Impugned Order dated 18.08.2025, as far as the present appeal is

concerned is with respect to I.A. No. 723 (ND) of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 334 (ND)/

2018. At the outset, we are conscious to note that while disposing the above

mentioned in I.A. No. 723 (ND) of 2025, the Adjudicating Authority has not

examined any issue and has not recorded any finding which may reflect judicial

application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority.

Page 13 of 28

41. We observe that in most of pages, the contentions of both the parties have

been noted by the Adjudicating Authority and the finding is contained only in one

the paragraph.

42. For the sake of clarity, the impugned order containing few pages is

reproduced as under :-

Page 14 of 28 Page 15 of 28 Page 16 of 28 Page 17 of 28 Page 18 of 28 Page 19 of 28 Page 20 of 28 Page 21 of 28

43. From above, we find that the only one para containing the of disposal of

I.A. No. 723 (ND) of 2025, we are perplexed not to find any reasoning,

whatsoever or discussion on the merit or demerits of the contentions made by the

parties, which have not been recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in the

Impugned Order itself. Similarly, we do not find any clue as on what basis the

I.A. No. 723 (ND) of 2025 has been allowed in favour of the Respondent. The

relevant para of the Impugned Order reads as under :-

"In the wake, the present application is disposed of with the direction that the SRA would execute the required documents for transfer of the aforementioned.

Shop in the name of the Applicant within two weeks' from today. The Applicant would also make the payment of electricity dues as per the resolution plan within the given time. It is made clear that nonpayment of the charges would be no ground to delay the execution of the document, and the

Page 22 of 28 parties have independent liability to honour the provisions of the plan.

The SRA/Managing Committee would also ensure that the rent received in respect of the shops mentioned in the application is credited to the account of the Applicant within 4 weeks from today. It is made clear that, if the rent is not credited to the account of the Applicant as per the order passed in IA-723/2025, the Applicant would be entitled to revive of the present IA. The application stands disposed of. The present order would abide by the outcome of the Company Appeal AT (Ins.) No. 1153/2024."

(Emphasis Supplied)

44. We observe that a non-speaking order lacks of detailed reasoning, analysis

and finding of facts and law. We find that the present finding as quoted above, is

rather too cryptic and sketchy and thus, fails to explain on what basis of facts and

the law, the Adjudicating Authority has reached to the conclusion of allowing the

Respondent to execute the documents. We do not find any answer as to why the

Adjudicating Authority has taken this decision in I.A. No. 723 (ND) of 2025.

45. There are several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India that non-speaking impugned order cannot be sustained legally. In this

connection, some of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are

reproduced as under:-

(A) Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, [(2003) 11 SCC 519] "19. Before we part with the case, we feel it necessary to indicate that non-reasoned conclusions by appellate courts

Page 23 of 28 are not appropriate, more so, when views of the lower court are differed from. In case of concurrence, the need to again repeat reasons may not be there. It is not so in case of reversal. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.

Without the same, it becomes lifeless."

(Emphasis supplied)

(B) M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others CIVIL APPEAL NO.7472 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007)

"51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing

Page 24 of 28 principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in

Page 25 of 28 decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions"

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

52. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and remand the matter to the said forum for deciding the matter by passing a reasoned order in the light of the observations made above. Since some time has elapsed, this Court requests the forum to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of service of this order upon it.

(Emphasis supplied)

Page 26 of 28 (C) State of Rajasthan Vs Rajendra Prasad Jain (Appeal (crl.) 360 of 2008)

Relevant paras:

"8. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152).

9. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120)(NIRC) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

Page 27 of 28 10. The above position was highlighted in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004(5) SCC 568).

11. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside, and matter is remitted to it. The High Court shall take up the matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs."

(Emphasis supplied)

46. In view of above, we do not have any option but to set aside the Impugned

Order since there is no reasoned finding has been given in the Impugned Order.

The Impugned Order is set aside and remanded back to the Adjudicating

Authority to decide it a fresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order

after hearing both the parties.

47. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicated Authority on

22.04.2026. No order as to cost. I.A., if any are Closed.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Sim

Page 28 of 28