Prateek Rao vs Naman Goyal And Others

IN THE MATTER OF: Prateek Rao ...Appellant

Versus

Naman Goyal & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sonal Anand, Advocate. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.10.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority dated 22.08.2025 on the Contempt Application which

was filed by the Respondent herein for initiating proceedings for civil contempt

for disobeying the order dated 21.10.2024.

2. When the appeal was taken for consideration this Tribunal passed

following order on 08.09.2025:

"O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

08.09.2025: An additional affidavit has been filed by the appellant in pursuance of the liberty granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the adjudicating authority directing for initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant which contempt proceedings was directed to be listed on 09.09.2025.

3. The appellant gave an undertaking on 21.10.2024 before the adjudicating authority that 20% of the amount will be paid upto 30.11.2024 to the 19 allottees and they shall complete the MoU with homebuyers and individually issue post-dated cheques to settle the matter before 31.03.2025.

4. It appears that the undertaking was not complied with since the cheques issued were dishonoured hence the contempt proceedings were initiated.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant always intended to settle with all allottees. Out of 19 allottees with 9 allottees they have settled and they had intention to settle with other 10 allottees, there were some issues regarding the final amount to be settled with the parties hence the MoU was not entered into.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has never intention of disobeying the undertaking or the order of the Court. He submits that he has also filed a letter signed by four of the respondents who have noticed that due to issues raised by certain other allottees, settlement could not be made between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant however submits that insofar as the 20% amount the cheques were not honoured, he shall handover the bank draft to the remaining 10 allottees (who have not yet settled, except those who have settled) within two weeks from today.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1351 of 2025 2 of 5

8. Appellant shall also at endeavour to enter into MoU for final settlement.

List this appeal on 06th October, 2025.

In view of the fact that we have already fixed the matter on 06.10.2025, adjudicating authority shall not proceed further with the contempt proceedings."

3. Subsequently, this Tribunal also noted the statement made by the

Appellant in order dated 06.10.2025:

"O R D E R

06.10.2025: Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has prepared a demand draft for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and three allottees he could not contact for whom cheques are ready. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that even amount which is proposed in A16 are less than the amount which was offered by cheque by the Appellant itself which is reflected at pg. 278 onwards in Annexure A9 to the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that he shall make the payment as per the amount referred to in the respective cheques and the difference amount shall be paid by DD or by RTGS within three days from today. Counsel for the Respondent accept the DDs without prejudice to his rights. With regard to other Respondents for whom cheques were prepared, cheques be accepted without prejudice to rights of the Respondent. The Appellant undertakes to make the differential amount within three days as directed above. List again on 29 th October, 2025.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1351 of 2025 3 of 5 Interim order passed earlier shall continue."

4. When the appeal is taken today for consideration, learned counsel for

the Appellant submits that the Appellant has already paid 20% (Cheque

Amount) to all the 9 allottees as contemplated by order dated 21.10.2024.

The events which have been noticed by this Tribunal in the orders as noted

above and statement made by the Appellant clearly indicate that the Appellant

has not wilfully disobeyed any direction of order passed by the NCLT and

present is not a case for initiation of contempt proceeding for disobeying order

dated 21.10.2024, at this stage.

5. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was always willing

and ready to comply with the order and Appellant has taken steps for

settlement with all the allottees and payments were made. Cheques which

were not honoured, amount was paid by Bank Draft.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that payments were made

with delay and not within the time as given by the Court and this indicate

that the Appellant was not truthful in complying the order.

7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

8. From the sequence of events and facts noticed in orders, as noted above

and statement as made by the Appellant that 20% (Cheque Amount) as

directed by order dated 21.10.2024 has been paid, as of now, we are of the

view that Contempt Application which was filed by the Respondent need not

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1351 of 2025 4 of 5 be proceeded any further. Order dated 22.08.2025 is set aside. We, however,

grant liberty to the Respondent to take such proceeding including contempt

proceeding, if any such circumstances arise.

9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the claim of any the parties. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1351 of 2025 5 of 5