Santosh Kumar vs Ask Trusteeship Services Private ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 926 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed as infructuous because the corporate insolvency resolution process has been withdrawn under Section 12A, so the subject matter of the appeal no longer survives and no further adjudication is required. Interlocutory applications premised on the appellate proceedings are disposed of without further order where the applicant's grievance is met by the respondent's recorded statement that, upon withdrawal of the CIRP, the allotment will be reinstated subject to the terms of the agreement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 926 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2637 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
Santosh Kumar ...Appellant(s)
Versus
ASK Trusteeship Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kartik Nayar, Divyanshu Rai, Krish Kalra, Vaibhav Luthra, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Vaijyant Paliwal, Anoop Rawat, Saurav Panda, Nikhil Mathur, Aditya, Kriti Gupta, Olksha Sharma, Shreya Gupta, Adv. for IRP Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Adv. for I.A No. 2637 of 2025 and 1821 of 2026. Mr. Kanishk Ray, Rachit Mittal, Parikh Mishra, Adv. for NOIDA
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 13.03.2026: This appeal has been filed against an order dated
22.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which order an
application filed by ASK Trusteeship Services Pvt. Ltd. and two other
applicants section 7 application has been admitted against the CD i.e. ATS
Heights Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
2. This appeal was taken with another appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 912 of
2024 and in both appeal an order was passed on 09.05.2024.
3. In the appeal, I.A No. 2637 of 2025 and 1821 of 2026 have been filed
by Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam claiming to be a homebuyer seeking certain
directions with regard to restoration of her allotment of unit no. 129 in project
'ATS Knightsbridge', Sector 124, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 912 of
2024 the appeal was disposed of on 09.03.2026 with liberty to IRP to file an
application under Section 12A in view of the settlement dated 24.01.2026 with
the Financial Creditor. The appeal was disposed of on 09.03.2026.
5. When the present appeal was taken up today for consideration Ld.
Counsel for the IRP submits that 12A application which was filed for
withdrawal of the CIRP has been allowed by an order passed today. It is
submitted that in view of the CIRP having been withdrawn under 12A, the
appeal has become infructuous and no further consideration is required. We
record the said statement.
6. In so far as I.A No. 2637 of 2025 and 1821 of 2026 which has been filed,
the Applicant has informed that an email has been sent on behalf of the CD
on 12.03.2026 that in event the CIRP is withdrawn the allotment shall be
reinstated subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. We record
the said statement. We see no reason to pass any further order in both
applications.
7. The Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. I.A.s are disposed of.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free