Vijay Shobhalal Shah vs Hi-Tech Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...

Company Appeal (AT) No. 333 of 2026 & I.A. No. 6267 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Vijay Shobhalal Shah ...Appellant

Versus

Hi-Tech Water Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arjun R. Sheth, Ms. Hetvi Ganatra, Ms. Vaidehi Khatri, Advocates. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.09.2026: The appellant, who contends that he happens to be a

decree holder as a consequence of the adjudication made in Company

Petition No. 24 of 2019, which was decided on 29.05.2020, has filed an

application preferred under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking an

execution of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.05.2020.

2. When this company appeal was taken up, Ld. Counsel for the

appellant, in order to carve out an exception that the application preferred

under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, was still maintainable owing to the

observations made in paragraph 7 (d) of the impugned judgment, which

prescribed that a liberty was granted to the appellant to approach before the

tribunal for compliance of the directions, that were given therein in

paragraph 7 (d).

3. The argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is not

acceptable by us for the reason being that whatsoever directions those were -2-

expected to be complied with by the appellant as observed in paragraph 7 (d)

would have to be read compositely with the judgment itself, that is, the

judgment of 29.05.2020, which, compositely as per the law as contained

under subsection 3 of Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, will

constitute a decree, and it has to be executed as per the mechanism

provided under the law itself.

4. It is settled law that exercising an inherent power by the court or the

tribunal stated under law could be only in relation to those areas when those

fields are not specifically covered under the statute. Exercising an inherent

power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, cannot be an escape to avoid

recourse to sub Section 3 of Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, for

seeking an execution of the order which had taken the shape of decree.

5. In that view of the matter, the company appeal is dismissed with a

liberty left open for the appellant to resort to the recourse of getting the order

executed by resorting to the appropriate recourse as available under sub

section 3 of Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013. All interlocutory

applications would stand closed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) SA/rr Company Appeal (AT) No. 333 of 2026