TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., CA-88/2023, CA-123/2023, CA- 291/2023, CA-387/2023, CA-22/2024, CA-34/2024, Mr. Ashish Khanna, appeared through VC. We posed a question as to whether he has paid the cost of Rs. 50,000/-in terms of our earlier order dated 15.12.2023 for which he sent a bank demand draft dated 17.02.2024 to the NCLT. The said bank demand draft was returned to him vide letter dated 12.09.2024 requesting him to deposit the cost in appropriate manner. The copy of the letter dated 12.09.2024 was also sent to Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for Ashish Khanna in CA- 440/2022. Today, we enquired whether the cost as directed by order dated 15.12.2023 was paid or not. Mr. Ashish Khanna states that he has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble NCLAT and the said appeal is still pending. He further states that he met Mr. Sanjay Shorey, DG, Ministry of Corporate Affairs in presence of RD, Gauhati and he was informed by the DG that he need not pay the cost as the NCLT has not decided his applications including the perjury application. In view of the non-compliance of order dated 15.12.2023 and multiple proceedings initiated by Mr. Ashish Khanna which was earlier recorded in order dated 05.04.2024 and in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme Court arising out of CP No.71/241-242/PB/2020 was handed over to the Court which indicate that nothing is pending in the NCLAT. It is submitted that against the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the NCLT in CP No.71 of 2020, Company Appeal (AT) No.93 of 2022 was filed by the Major Atul Dev (Retd.) & Ors. and Company Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022 was filed by one Rajeev Sabharwal, both the Appeals were decided by this Tribunal by judgment and order dated 21.10.2024. After judgment dated 21.10.2024 of this Tribunal deciding both the Company Appeals, Civil Appeal has been filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Major Atul Dev & Ors. being Civil Appeal No.395 of 2025 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.01.2025 has issued notice returnable in six weeks. Further in Company Appeal (AT) No.93 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022, IA No.1262 of 2025 and IA No.1263 of 2025 were filed by Delhi Gymkhana Club seeking certain reliefs which applications were dismissed by this Tribunal on 28.03.2025 which indicate that nothing is pending arising out of the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the NCLT, Principal Bench in this Tribunal and in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, Principal Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022 were finally decided by judgment of this Tribunal dated 21.10.2024 against which order, Civil Appeal No.395 of 2025 has been filed by Major Atul Dev in which Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notice on 27.01.2025 and the said Appeal is said to be still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Company Appeal (AT) No.93 of 2022 and Company Appeal (AT) No.141 of 2022, two applications IA No.1262 of 2025 and IA No.1263 of 2025 were filed by Delhi Gymkhana Club which were dismissed by this Tribunal by order dated 28.03.2025 which is brought on the record at Page 28 of the paper book. After dismissing IA No.1262 of 2025 and IA No.1263 of 2025, nothing is pending before this Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 01.04.2022 which was passed by the NCLT in CP No. of 71 of 2020. The NCLT, Principal Bench thus, need to proceed further. After taking note of the fact that insofar as order passed by the NCLT, Principal Bench dated 01.04.2022 in CP No.71 of 2020, nothing is pending in NCLAT and that may not be any reason for not proceeding further. 8. Now we come to the orders of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied by the Appellant in support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant itself in an Appeal, had noticed the reliance on said judgment by the Appellant in paragraph 7. Appellant in support of the said application filed in the above Company Appeal (AT) No.242 of 2024 has placed reliance on the judgment of "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors." (supra) which was noticed in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment which is as follows:- "7. Company Appeal (AT) No.242 of 2024 which was filed by the Appellant was rejected on account of rejection of Delay Condonation Application filed in the Appeal for Condonation of Delay and result is that Appeal was not maintainable as barred by time. When Appeal which was filed by the Appellant under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been dismissed as barred by time on account of rejection of Delay Condonation Application. The present application IA No.7617 of 2024 prays for issuing certain directions and grant of reliefs on the pleadings as made in the application. The Appellant's appeal having been dismissed as barred by time, we fail to see that how any application after dismissal of the appeal as barred by time can be entertained by this Tribunal. Appellant to support his submissions has relied on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er entering into the merits of the case directed the matter to be handed over for the investigation to the CBI. The order and direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case was on the facts of the said case. The question regarding maintainability of the application in an appeal which has been dismissed as barred by time was not the subject matter of the issue, hence, the said judgment which was pronounced on the merits of the case does not come to the aid of the Appellant in any manner in the present application." 12. We have already taken the view in the above case that there can be no dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors." (supra). However, the order passed in "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors." was an order which arose from an order of the High Court passed under Section 482 of the CrPC where High Court has quashed the entire proceedings arising out of the case under Sections 363, 367 and 376 of the IPC. The said judgment in no manner comes to the aid of the Appellant in the present case. In the present case, the application which has been filed by the Appellant has not yet been....