Sandeep G. Raheja vs Omkara Asset Reconstruction Private ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Sandeep G. Raheja ...Appellant(s)

Versus Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Ms. Kaanchi Ahuja, Ms. Shalini Basu and Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for R1.

Mr. Suraj Dhawan and Sanampreet Singh, Advocates for R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

17.10.2025 This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority dated 08.09.2025 in I.A. No. 2353/MB/2025. The

application was filed by the Appellant and with respect to Prayer-G, the

Adjudicating Authority has held that prayer cannot be allowed by this

Tribunal as those issues have to be dealt with provision of IBC, 2016. The

Prayer-G of the application is following:

"That, appropriate directions be passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal restraining the Corporate Debtor from negotiating and/or arriving at any settlement/compromise/agreement in relation to the said Property and/or the Share Capital of the Corporate Debtor which is in any manner contrary to or in breach of the Orders dated March 14, 2005 and April 25, 2007 of Hon'ble High Court and/or which would affect the Applicant's 50% shareholding and directorship in the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant's rights and interest in the said Property and the superstructures thereon;"

The appeal has been filed challenging the said order. We have heard

Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Krishnan Venugopal appearing for Appellant and Mr.

Abhishek Anand appearing for the Respondent.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that even if the prayer-G was

not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority the suit which is pending between

the parties in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the various orders passed

by the Bombay High Court they are required to be included in the

information memorandum. Hence, the appropriate direction needs to be

issued.

Mr. Abhishek Anand appearing for the Respondent referring to earlier

order dated 15.07.2024, submits that earlier appeals CA(AT)(Ins.) 165 of

2024 with other appeals and IA was filed by the Appellant, In I.A. No. 3576

of 2024 where similar prayers where made was disposed of by this Tribunal

on 15.07.2024. The order dated 15.07.2024 is as follows:

"O R D E R (Hybrid Mode)

15.07.2024: I.A. No. 3576 of 2024 This is an application filed by Sh. Sandeep G. Raheja, applicant/ intervener praying for following reliefs:-

PRAYERS

34. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Applicant prays for the following Orders:

a. Allow the present Application for Intervention on behalf of the Applicant herein in the present matter;

2 of 7 b. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Interim Resolution Professional, to incorporate following facts in Information Memorandum/Resolution Plan/Settlement or compromise agreement;

i. That there is Suit bearing No. 3121 of 2004 pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court;

ii. That the 50% share holding of the Applicant, in Corporate Debtor, is subject matter of said Suit No. 3121 of 2004;

iii. That any order passed by this Hon'ble Court is subject to further orders by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Suit No. 3121 of 2004;

c. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to restrain the IRP/RP/COC by its Order from taking step in CIRP process which would affect Applicant's interest and the relief sought in Suit No. 3121 of 2004 including but not limited to dealing with 50% shareholding of Applicant in the Corporate Debtor and/or any rights, interests and/or benefits emanating therefrom which are subject matter of the Suit;

d. For interim and ad-interim prayers in terms of prayer clause (C) above;

e. For costs of this Application;

f. Any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has referred to the order of the Bombay High Court dated 14.03.2005 filed in Suit No. 3121 of 2004 where he has relied upon direction-iv which are as follows:-

ORDER

(i) Defendant No. 5 is directed that any consideration that may be carried out on the land shall be in accordance with the

3 of 7 sanctioned building plan without any impermissible deviation there from;

(ii) Creation of any encumbrances on the land during the pendency of the suit shall be subject to the result of the suit and the person in whose favour the encumbrance is created would be informed about it in writing;

(iii) Any development that may be carried out on the land shall be subject to the result of the suit;

(iv) Defendant No. 5 shall always retain 50% of the authorised share capital of Defendant No.5 with itself during the pendency of the suit.

(v) Notice of Motion disposed of

3. Shri Gaurav Mitra, Ld. Counsel for the IRP submits that he has filed the Reply to the IA he has referred to paragraph- 11 and 13 in which paragraphs IRP has made all the pleadings.

11. That it is submitted that irrespective of the prayers sought by the Applicant, the IRP/RP is bound to provide the requisite information details of all material litigation and an ongoing investigation or proceeding initiated by Government and statutory authorities in the IM. It is submitted that information memorandum thus contains all the relevant information including the material pending litigation. Accordingly, prayer 'b' is infructuous.

13. That the suit bearing no. 3121 of 2004 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The IRP/ RP in terms of Section 25 of the Code is required to represent and act on behalf of the Corporate Debtor in the pending proceedings.

5. Ld. Counsel for the IRP submits that as and when the information memorandum is prepared the details of all ligation including the orders passed by Bombay High Court shall be duly reflected in the said IM. In view of the statement made by IRP we see no reason to keep the application pending, recording the above statement we dispose of the application. Application is disposed of accordingly.

4 of 7

6. IRP is given liberty to file hard copy of the status report.

7. Counsel for the appellant seek s liberty to file Additional- Affidavit he may do so within two weeks.

8. Reply to the Additional-Affidavit may also be filed before the next date.

List this appeal as "high on the board" on 29.07.2024. Interim order to continue."

Mr. Abhishek Anand further submitted that after the aforesaid order a

letter was written to the RP in response to which direction was given on

17.09.2025 in which the letter is following stated:

5 of 7 6 of 7 In view of the above order passed by this Tribunal dated 15.07.2024

and letter which was communicated which was sent on 17.09.2025,

extracted as above, the apprehension of the Appellant is misconceived. The

RP having itself undertaken all their litigation as further direction of this

Court. All relevant litigation which is pending in the Bombay High Court

shall be referred in the assertion as undertaken. Litigation along with order

passed has also referred to E-mail dated 14.09.2025.

We make it clear that in the order passed in this appeal only Prayer-G

made by the Appellant in the application was considered and no other issue

has been considered. In view of the order, we are passing, no order is

required to be amended.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/nn

7 of 7