Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumari vs Registrar Of Companies & Ors on 30 May, 2025
Author: Dharmesh Sharma
Bench: Dharmesh Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order reserved on: 28 May 2025
Order pronounced on: 30 May 2025
+ W.P.(C) 1567/2024 & CM APPL. 24715/2025
SURESH KUMARI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta & Mr. Jai
Shankar Sikand, Advs.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Mr. Kushagra
Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj,
Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Ms.
Apporva D., Mr. Ajay Kumar
Dutt, Ms. Priyanka Gill & Mr.
Manpreet Manchanda, Advs.
for ROC/R-1 and R-2/UOI.
Mr. Raj Kamal, Mr. Aseem
Atwal, Ms. Aprajita Tyagi &
Ms. Stuti, Advs. for R-6.
Mr. D.N. Chaturvedi, Mr.
Deepak Somani and Mr.
Ayushman Bhatt, Advs. for R-
8/Supreet Singh Suri.
Ms. Rajeev Basoiya, Adv. for
R-9.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Ravi Shankar Nandan,
Mr. Madhurima Sarangi, Mr.
Tushar Bhushan & Mr. Karni
Singh, Advs. for R-12 and R-
13.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:30.05.2025 REV. PET. 143/2025 in W.P.(C) 1567/2024 Page 1 of 5
17:09:51
Ms. Kanika Singhal, Ms. Vijeta
Singh & Mr. Shivam Singh
Rana, Advs. for IRP M/s. Three
C Shelters Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv with
Mr. Harsit Sethi, Mr. Utkarsh
Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr.
Vansh Sharma, Mr. Rubinder
Ghumman, Ms. Rashmi
Srivastava & Dr. Rakesh
Kumar, Advs. for R-4.
Ms. Jyoti Taneja and Mr.
Prabhas Bajaj, Advs. for M S
Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
REVIEW PET. 143/2025 (FOR REVIEW OF JUDGMENT
DATED. 20.02.2025)
1. The applicant/petitioner has preferred this review petition under
Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the previous order
dated 20.02.2025 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.11/Orris Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. as well as the respondent no.12 and 13 have filed a reply to
the review petition, whereas written submissions have been submitted
on behalf of Greenopolis Welfare Confederation, an association of
home buyers.
3. Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner has urged that the applicant/petitioner is seeking
reconsideration of the observations recorded in paragraphs (62), (70)
and (75), the reading of which creates an impression that the IRP
Report dated 09.08.2023 is a useless piece of document and the same
cannot be acted upon.
4. Per contra, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.12 and 13 has vehemently urged that the review petition
is not maintainable as it does not disclose any error apparent on the
face of the record and reliance is sought on the decision in the case of
Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited 1 as well
as in the case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, first things first, it would be apposite to reproduce the
paragraph nos. (62), (70) and (75) (vii) of the order dated 20.02.2025
of which the review is sought: -
"62. In view of the aforesaid turn of events and considering the
complexity of the factual narrative and interwoven set of legal
proceedings involving several parties and decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court, along with the fact that NCLT is now seized of the
matter, the bottom line is that the petitioner and those who are
similarly placed, i.e., the homebuyers, are yet to see the light at the
end of the tunnel. Unhesitatingly, this Court finds no ground to
recall the order dated 02.02.2024. The issues relating to the
genuineness of the IRP report dated 09.08.2023, which has been
espoused on behalf of the petitioner, respondent No.11/Orris and
respondent No.4/Greenopolis Welfare Confederation on one side,
and contested by applicants/respondents No. 12 and 13, along with
respondent No.5/Greenopolis Welfare Association on the other
side, are complex set of facts which need to be addressed by the
NCLT in view of the directions of the Supreme Court.
70. Similarly, the plea of Respondent No. 11/Orris is also on no
better footing. Throughout these proceedings, these parties have
opened a Pandora's box, revealing a dismal and unsavoury state of
1 (2023) 8 SCC 11
2 (2019) 4 SCC 17
affairs in the real estate market, and demonstrating how innocent
homebuyers are being taken for a ride. It was evident throughout
the proceedings that the entire issue hinged on the IRP report,
over which there has been no final verdict from this Court or
from any other judicial or quasi-judicial forum declaring the
IRP report as the gospel truth. Given that successive IRP reports
are now before the NCLT and a Monitoring Committee has been
constituted, it is essential that the law is allowed to take its own
course.
75. In view of the foregoing discussion, in modification of
earlier order dated 02.02.2024, the following directions are passed:
(i) to (vi) omitted as not relevant
(vii) Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall investigate the matter against the
ACE Group of Companies uninfluenced by the findings in the
report of the IRP dated 09.08.2023 in accordance with Sections
206, 209, 216, 217 and 224 of the Companies Act, 2013;
6. I am afraid on a careful perusal of the observations recorded in
the abovesaid paragraphs besides reading the entire order as a whole,
it has nowhere been observed by the Court that the IRP Report dated
09.08.2023 is in any manner a waste paper, useless or has no legal
effect, or that the same can never be acted upon.
7. It is a matter of record that the IRP was appointed in terms of
the directions of the National Company Law Tribunal ["NCLT"] vide
order dated 14.12.2022, and further vide order dated 26.05.2023 it was
directed to verify the claims of the secured and unsecured creditors of
the respondent no. 3/Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. The impugned report
dated 09.08.2023 by the IRP has been the subject of consideration in
various proceedings leading up to the Supreme Court, this Court as
well as the NCLT.
8. However, the issue as to whether or not any actions or inactions
on the part of the IRP are within or outside the scope of Section 45
and other relevant provisions of the IBC; and additionally, whether or
not the findings recorded therein are substantiated or corroborated in
any manner, are matters that clearly lie in the domain of the NCLT.
The NCLT is already seized of the matter pursuant to the direction of
the Supreme Court dated 19.11.2024, whereby the corporate
insolvency proceedings in respect of the respondent no.3/Three C
Shelters Private Ltd. has been revived.
9. In summary, it is in the domain of the NCLT to examine the
legality and/or the probative value of the findings in the impugned
report, obviously in the light of various materials or documents which
may have been produced by the concerned parties, and than the
NCLT may reach at its own conclusion in accordance with law.
10. Likewise, although the impugned report is one of the factors
that triggered the inquiry/investigation by respondent No. 1 & 2
against the companies mentioned vide paragraph (75) (vii), but such
report is not a conclusive piece of evidence as such. The findings
contained in the report are supposed to be independently examined
and relevant material should be unearthed to substantiate the role of
the concerned companies and nexus, if any, in the alleged financial
malpractices.
11. Except for the aforesaid clarification, the instant application for
review does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record.
Hence, the present review petition is dismissed.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
MAY 30, 2025/Ch
