Surjeet Singh Chadha & Anr vs Chadha Infratech Ltd & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Surjeet Singh Chadha & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Chadha Infratech Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellants : Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Prashant Mehta and Mr. Raghav Marwaha, Advocates for R- 1 to 4 & 6

ORDER

19.07.2023: Heard Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and

Mr. Prashant Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4 & 6. The

present appeal has been preferred against an Interlocutory order dated

13.04.2023 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court -III.

The impugned order is reproduced herein below:

This application has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 6 seeking withdrawal of the undertaking dated 21.11.2022.

The undertaking recorded in the order dated 21.11.2022 is as follows:

"The Respondent has submitted that the Respondent shall not take any steps for creating third party rights of the land, in question, in the meantime."

This application was heard on 03.03.2023, 20.03.2023 and 23.03.2023. Today, when the matter was called out, no one was present for arguing the matter. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the order dated 21.11.2022 should be modified and the undertaking given by Ld. Counsel be directed to be withdrawn.

-2-

Considering the fact that no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents in the present application which is a part heard matter, we deem it appropriate to modify the order dated 21.11.2022 to the extent indicated below, so far as the undertaking given by Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent:-

"The Respondent shall not take any steps for creating third party rights of the land with respect to 20% share of 9.06 Hacters of the land in question as claimed by the Applicant till further orders."

List the matter on 22.05.2023.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant tried to persuade the court that

fraudulently the land in question was marked in the name of Respondent No.

1/Company and moreover while the matter was fixed for hearing before the

NCLT the earlier undertaking given by the Respondent was modify by the

impugned order on the prayer made by the Respondent. It was argued that

only for short period there was no reason for modifying the earlier order.

On perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant had claimed

20% shares in the undivided property on the basis of family settlement deed

dated 24.07.1995. It is further evident from the pleading that on 05.01.2008 a

settlement deed was prepared wherein Appellants were shown as if they were

willing to relinquish their rights over the subject land in favour of Respondent

No.1/Company. It has been pleaded in the appeal that said settlement deed

dated 05.01.2008 was fabricated and forged one. The Appellants have also filed

number of complaints and initiated criminal proceedings.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 79 of 2023 -3-

However, on going through the impugned order it is evident that 20%

share of the Appellant has been protected by the impugned order. Without

recording any opinion either on Settlement deed dated 24.07.1995 or

Settlement deed dated 05.01.2008, we are of the view that since the claim of

appellants regarding 20% right has been preserved by the impugned order

which is interim in nature there is no reason to interfere with the same. All the

issues are left open to be examined by the Ld. NCLT.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

sr/gc

Company Appeal (AT) No. 79 of 2023