Sudhir Thackersey vs Bhishma Realty Limited & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) No. 362 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Sudhir K. Thackersey ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Bhishma Realty Limited & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhirup Das Gupta, Ms. Srishti Juneja, Ms. Tejaswi Bhanu, Ms. Vagisha Tiwari and Ms. Surbhi Sachdeva, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Sen, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nakul Mohta, Mr. Hitesh Nagar and Mr. Rohit K. Debnath, Advocates for R1.

Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Karishma Rao, Adv. Rashna Dastur, Mr. Punit Jain, Ms. Geetika Sharma and Ms. Pramita Mishra, Advocates for R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.09.2026 The Appellant, in the instant Company Appeal has put to

challenge the impugned order of 04.09.2026, which reads as under:

"1. Adv. Akshay Petkar i/b Adv. Pranav Shah for the Petitioner is present. Sr. Adv. Venkatesh Dhond a/w Adv. Karishma Rao for the Respondent No.2 are present. Adv. Shyam Kapadia for the Respondent No.4 is present. Sr. Adv. J.P. Sen, Adv. Kunal Vaishnav a/w Adv. Mrishma Mody for the Respondent No.1 are present. Ms. Srishti Juneja a/w Mr. Tejaswi Bhanu for Respondent No. 3 present through VC.

2. It is stated that the Hon'ble NCLAT in an Appeal filed by the Respondent against the waiver Application allowed by this Tribunal has allowed the NCLT to proceed further in the matter on merits without waiting for outcome of the Appeal against the waiver under Section 244(1) allowed to the Petitioner. The pleadings are stated to be complete in this matter.

3. List this matter on Board on 23.09.2026 at 12:30 P.M for final arguments."

2. In fact, the proceedings in the appeal were being carried because of

order dated 18.08.2026 passed by NCLAT in Company Appeal No. 266 of

2026, the directions in the impugned order is, in consonance to the earlier

order of this Tribunal as referred above, this itself will make the present

Company Appeal as not maintainable, as the impugned order is nothing but

a step taken as per the order of this Tribunal. The Appellant should have

approached in earlier Company Appeal, rather than filing the present appeal,

which would be an absolute abuse of process of law.

3. On looking to the impugned order, itself under challenge, the Ld.

Tribunal was rather recording the factum of the grant of waiver, and the

pendency of an Appeal against the grant of waiver before this Tribunal,

where it has been directed the matter to be listed on Board on 23.09.2026 at

12:30 P.M for final arguments.

4. In fact, the effective part of the order which has been put to challenge

is contained in para-3, we are sorry to state that such type of an order is not

expected to be put to challenge in the Appellate Jurisdiction under Section

421, and that by an independent appeal, when earlier appeal was already

pending, more particularly, when it does not have an effect or deciding any

right of any of the parties to the proceedings, the Company Appeal deserves

2 of 3 to be dismissed with the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited in Prime

Minister Relief Fund.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Abhishek/Ravi Member (Technical)

3 of 3