Satinder Singh Bhasin vs Col Gautam Mullick And Ors

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI I.A. NO.5936 OF 2025 IN COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INS) NO.1594 OF 2023 In the matter of: Satinder Singh Bhasin Erstwhile Director of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Appellant Vs Col Gautam Mullick & Ors Respondent For Appellant: Mr Gaurav Mitra, Ms Neeha Nagpal, Mr Malak Bhatt, Mr Nikunj Mahajan, Mr Praney Sharma, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr Pradeep Jain, Mr Raunak Satpathy, Mr Shubhansha Gupta, Mr Kartik Pant, Mr Srijan Sonkar, Advocates. Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr Nikhil Kohli, Mr Sameer Rohatgi, Mr K Garg, Ms Akshaya Gupta, Ms Saumaya Tiwari, Ms Mani Mehtra, Mr Manish Singhal, Advocates for Intervenor Mr Abhishek Anand, Mr Karan Kohli, Ms Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates for IRP. Ms R;uchira Gupta, Mr Mohtishan Ali, advocates.

ORDER

HYBRID MODE 07.10.2025: This application is moved by the appellant under Rule 11 of the

NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking permission to deposit a sum of Rs.15,62,00,000/-

within a period of four weeks to demonstrate his bona fide that there is no default

and consequently grant stay of pronouncement of final order in the present 2

matter and the connected appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins)NO.1593 of

2023.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant though the

total number of allottees who filed the Company Petition are shown to be 103

but the unsettled customers were only 55 and the amount due to them is

Rs.15.62 crores and that without prejudice to the rights of the appellant, the

appellant is inclined to deposit such amount in the Tribunal.

3. Admittedly the matter is already reserved for judgement after hearing both

the parties and the question is such as application at this stage is if

maintainable. Since the appeal has been finally heard and the matter is now

fixed for judgement, thus rights and the privileges of the parties are forfeited and

it is only for the convenience of the Tribunal(s) under Order XX Rule 1 of the

CPC, a judgement is permitted to be delivered after an interval upon completion

of hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed there is no hiatus between

the two stages of date on reservation of judgement and the date of

pronouncement of judgement and that after the judgement is reserved, there

remains no stage in any case and the parties have no rights/privileges left

thereafter. Thus considering the law laid down in Arjun Singh Vs Mohindra

Kumar and Ors 1963 SCC OnLine SC 43; Rajesh Dua Vs Rajiv Goyal and Anr

2024 SCC OnLine Del 454; Loramitra Rath (suspended director of Maa Durga

Commotrade P Ltd ) Vs JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd and Anr 2023 3

SCC OnLine NCLAT 2168 lays down above rule(s). Thus, there is no merit in the

application and is dismissed.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/md