TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Amartya Bhushan, Mr. Yojit Mehra, Mr. Varun Kumar and Ms. Karni Singh, Advs. J U D G M E N T W.P.(C) 174/2024 & CM APPL. No 7700/2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India ("the Constitution") seeking the following prayers:- "(i) Direct Respondent No. 1 to correct the information on the Master Data Form of Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd and remove the name of Mr Rajiv Baisoya reflecting as a director; (ii) Direct Respondent No. 1 to remove the name of all such additional directors, including that of Mr. Girish Chander Joshi, whose tenure has been expired and their name is still reflecting on the portal of Respondent No. 1; (iii) Direct Respondent No. 2 to investigate into the serious fraud that has been committed; (iv) Any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the facts of the instant case." 2. The petitioner i.e., Nishit Badola, is a financial creditor/ claimant of Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd. ("Three C"), a company incorporated on 31.12.2010, under the Companies Act, 1956. FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITIONER 3. The relevant facts, as borne out from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the capacity of a Director, to Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, IRP of Three C, seeking filing of Form-INC 28 for withdrawal, as CIRP of Three C had been set aside. e) Meantime, appeals were filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.10.2023 directed to maintain status quo including assets. f) As per the company master data, on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs' site, as on 28.11.2023, Three C had no director and the status remained same as before and only the name of Mr. Anand Ram was showing. g) Later, a Civil Appeal No. 7704/2023 was filed in the name of Three C, accompanied by an affidavit of Mr. Rajiv Baisoya and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 directed Mr. Rajiv Baisoya to produce authorization for filling the appeals, since the IRP has not authorised the same. h) In the meanwhile, status on the company master data of Three C changed and reflected Mr. Rajeev Baisoya as an additional director of Three C on 14.09.2023, as on 02.01.2024. i) Hence, the present petition. 4. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court passed an order dated 22.10.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further, liquidating the said assets to generate cash flows to realize the claims of the genuine financial claimants of the Corporate Debtor is also an essential step in this direction. 2. Deploying security guards on the assets which have been subsequently identified by the IRP which have been mentioned in the Status Report-4 [filed in sealed cover before this Hon'ble Court), as such assets have been created from the monies of the claimants whose claims have been accepted in the Status Report-1 prepared by the IRP. Further, these assets will be liquidated to generate cash flows to realize the claim of the genuine financial claimants of the Corporate Debtor. 3. Mutation of all the identified laundered assets in the name of Three C. Shelters Pvt. Ltd. as such assets have been created by the siphoned off monies from Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd. 4. Inviting Expression of Interest ["EOI"] with respect to the assets which have been identified by the IRP, for better valuation so that the claims of the genuine financial claimants are realized. 5. Publicizing the laundering of assets to spread awareness among the public at large that such assets hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, for now, the IRP is allowed to take measures which are indicative above vide serial no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12. In the consideration of this Court, such measures are necessary so as to safeguard the assets of the company and also the interest of the stakeholders." 5. The said order dated 22.10.2024 was challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench by Lavender Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. ("Lavender") i.e., respondent No. 9, Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ("Bright Buildtech") i.e., respondent No. 8, Greenopolis Welfare Association ("GWA") i.e., respondent No. 7 and Delhi Brass and Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. and others i.e., respondent No. 10. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 11.11.2024 directed parties to not take any steps in pursuance of the order dated 22.10.2024 qua the subject properties. Later, vide order dated 17.03.2025, disposing of the LPAs, the Hon'ble Division Bench directed the parties to approach Single Judge for recall of the order dated 22.10.2024 and directed to maintain status quo including assets, till the Single Judge disposes of the applications. 6. Pursuant to the said order, the following applications for recall of the order dated 22.10.2024 were filed: -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17. d) Under IBC, IRP needs to approach competent court/forum to determine claims over third party's properties. The Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to liquidate third party's assets that are not of the Corporate Debtor, reliance is placed on Embassy Property Development Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 308. e) No competent court/forum has determined that transactions involving the applicant amounts to siphoning of assets from Three C. f) Ace Group is not related to the Three C Group, except some past transactions. Bright Buildtech has been acquired by the Ace Group and no one from Ace Group has been a director/ shareholder in any Three C Group companies. g) Allegation that hundreds of crores worth companies were transferred by Three C at only Rs. 1 lakh to Ace Group are false. h) Order dated 02.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1567/2024, wherein relying upon the same IRP Report, the Court directed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to investigate into the affairs of Three C. However, subsequently, this Court returned a finding that the parties had failed to est....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... f) The said Status Report is in contravention of the order dated 25.03.2022 of HRERA and order dated 03.05.2023 of HREAT. g) At the time of passing of the impugned order, the IRP of Three C was functus officio in light of the setting aside the CIRP of Three C vide order dated 28.08.2023 of NCLAT in C.A. (AT) (INS) No. 444/2022, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.10.2023 directed all the parties to maintain status quo including assets. h) Under Section 18(f)(vi) of the IBC, an IRP could take possession of asset owned by Corporate Debtor, when the ownership is determined in Corporate Debtor's favour by the competent Authority. However, in the present matter, the Nehru Place Property's ownership is determined in favour of Lavender and not Three C. Reliance is placed on Victory Iron Works Limited v. Jitendra Lohia and Anr., (2023) 7 SCC 227; State of Maharashtra v. Anil Kohil, 2021 (2) Mh.L.J; Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 748; Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 308 and BRS Ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crores. c) HRERA being the appropriate judicial authority, has already affirmed applicants' prior beneficial interest over the Nehru Place Property. d) The impugned order defeats the ongoing proceedings before NCLT, Delhi and is beyond the scope of the main writ petition. Relief sought in the main writ petition was limited to change of status of the Corporate Debtor's and its directors' status on Ministry of Corporate Affairs' website. However, just on IRP's suggestions, he was granted power to take control of assets involved in insolvency proceedings pending before NCLT, Delhi, while the applicants were not even parties to the petition. e) The impugned order is in violation of audi alteram partem, as the applicants were not given any opportunity of being heard. f) The impugned order directs disposal of the Nehru Place Property, which does not belong to Three C and is beyond the scope of alleged CIRP under Section 18 of the IBC. g) Under Section 18(f) of IBC, IRP can take control of Corporate Debtor's assets over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership. However, the property is ex facie not under Corporate Debtor's control/custody and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 14. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the impugned order was passed in furtherance of prayers of the main writ petition and hence, this Court should entertain the continuation of the impugned order and makes the following submissions. Scope Of Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India 15. It is submitted that Three C has committed large scale fraud hurting innumerable homebuyers, including the petitioner, and in such a scenario this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to pass apposite remedial directions. The same cannot be denied on mere technical grounds, especially when it is a matter of public interest and a systemic fraud. The impugned order dated 22.10.2024, secures the interests of affected stakeholders and is intrinsically connected with the main petition's subject matter. If the said order is recalled/ vacated, the same would risk irreparable prejudice and depletion of assets that are supposed to be preserved for restitution. If the order is modified/ vacated the hundreds of affected homebuyers' claims would be prejudiced. The reliefs sought in the main petition are broad enough to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forensic audit conducted in Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., a company of Three C Group, states that Bright Buildtech is a related party to the Three C Group. It is further submitted that Ace Group is a proxy of Three C Group and Status Report-3 of IRP states that three companies of Three C Group were taken over by Ace Group, and this includes holding company of Bright Buildtech, which was acquired for only Rs. 1 lakh (though assets were to the tune of Rs. 700 crores approximately). 20. Further, there are contempt proceedings being Contempt Case (C) No. 1381/2025 against the directors of Bright Buildtech, due to violation of order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Reliance is placed on Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, to urge that a party in contempt of court cannot seek indulgence from the court until cleared of contempt. Lavender Close Nexus With Three C Group 21. It is submitted that Lavender is a related entity of Three C Group and is under control of Mr. Nirmal Singh, ex-promoter of Three C and his close allies. In the PAO dated 28.03.2025 by the ED, the relationship between Three C and Lavender has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice, especially matters involving public interest and systemic fraud. Prayers sought in the main writ petition are wide enough to warrant relevant reliefs. Reliance has been placed on Nur Islam & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3051; Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 100 and M/s Shiv Shankar Dal Mills & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 437. 26. It is submitted that subsequent events further shows that directions given in the impugned order are compatible with other judicial orders related to the matter. The said subsequent events being: (i) orders dated 20.11.2025 and 06.02.2026 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing assets' restitution for realisation of Three C's financial creditors' claims; (ii) order dated 27.11.2025 by the Special Court (PMLA) mandating restoration and monetisation of attached assets; and (iii) orders dated 03.01.2026 and 21.01.2026 of this Court, towards implementation of the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Special Court, (PMLA), which were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 11510/2026 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 28.08.2023 of NCLAT. Order dated 28.08.2023 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was IRP who represented Three C and also while recording the appearance of IRP in order dated 13.10.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that status quo be maintained. Further, when civil appeal being C.A. No. 7704/2023 was filed by Three C through Mr. Rajeev Baisoya, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 directed Mr. Rajiv Baisoya to be personally present to produce authorization for preferring the appeal. Thereafter, when fraud was clearly made out the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.03.2024, thereby making it clear that it was only IRP who could have represented the company. Furthermore, pursuant to order dated 19.11.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the NCLT in its order dated 17.12.2024 observed that "On the face of various judicial orders and there being nobody to take responsibility of the Corporate Debtor, the IRP acted with required responsibility and magnanimity." 30. In response to the contention that the Status Reports of the IRP have not been accepted by the adjudicating authority i.e., NCLT and hence, cannot be reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 1 to provide an explanation with respect to the change of status of the company M/s Three C Shelters Private Limited bearing CIN U70200DL2010PTC212015 having its registered office at C-23 Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-I NA, New Delhi, South Delhi, Delhi on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal. It is submitted that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its General Circular No. 08/2020 dated 06.03.2020 has empowered the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to change the status of a company from "Active"/"Inactive" to "CIRP"/"Liquidation" or vice versa. The relevant extract of the forementioned circular is reproduced herein as: ... It is pertinent to mention herein in view of the above mentioned notification, IBBI is the only competent authority to make a request for change of status of the company. 5. That the e-governance cell of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide email dated 22.02.2024 has clarified that the "Change Request Form" for change of status of the company to "Active" was submitted by the IBBI vide request dated 22.09.2023. It is submitted the averment of the Petitioner stating IRP alone has the power to submit a request for the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has also been observed by this Hon'ble Court. 16. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, the principal reliefs and concerns forming the subject matter of the present writ petition stand effectively addressed, and no further adjudication survives in the present proceedings. 17. The continuation of the present writ petition in the face of binding undertakings recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would serve no useful purpose and would amount to a purely academic exercise. PRAYER xxxxxxxx a. Dispose of the present writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 174 of 2024, in view of the subsequent developments and particularly the undertaking furnished by the Interim Resolution Professional of Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.11.2025...". 38. Additionally, I am also of the view that as far as prayer no. (iii) of the main petition is concerned, the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy under the provisions of the IBC, PMLA, and the Companies Act, 2013. Under the provisions of PMLA, the ED has already issued PAO dated 28.03.2025 and 08.07.2025. 39.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vi) As regards ACE Group of Companies too, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall have due deference to various judgments/orders/directions passed on the judicial side as well by the quasi-judicial authorities (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; (viii) In case the Investigating Officer appointed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 finds that there has been any connection between the Management of respondent No3/TCSPL as well as ACE Group of Companies with regard to M/s. Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.; M/s. Mega Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.; Three C Residency Pvt. Ltd; Three C City Developers Pvt. Ltd., he shall be empowered to inquire into the same and examine and satisfy himself about the genuineness of such acquisitions in accordance with law, except for those companies where recourse could be taken under section 65 & 66 of the IBC before the NCLT." (Emphasis added) 41. The review petition being REVIEW PET. 143/2025 against the said order also came to be dismissed vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with." (Emphasis added) 43. The said legal position has also been reiterated time and again by this Court as well, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Ambika Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order dated 22.10.2024 is in violation of principles of natural justice as it was passed without hearing the applicants. 46. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that since the impugned order has been continuing for so long, the Court may allow its continuance for some more time till the petitioner moves the appropriate forum. I am of the view, that since the prayers made in the main petition have either become infructuous or cannot be granted, relying on the order/judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.02.2026 in Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar, 2026 INSC 185, the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 cannot be extended any further. The relevant paragraphs from Mangal Rajendra Kamthe (supra) reads as under:- "6. It is settled law that once the high court, upon application of mind, declines to entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief is available but such remedy has not been pursued by the petitioner, the proceedings do not survive and must draw to an end then and there; however, in such a circumstance when no final relief ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on the petitions. That objection must fail in view of the fact that with these orders the petitions were disposed of finally and nothing further remained to be done in respect of the petitions. The fact that the operation of the order is limited to three months or a week after the filing of the intended suit does not prevent the order from being final. 14. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such orders under Article 226 under the circumstances of the case. This is not a case where the Court before finally disposing of a petition under Article 226 gave directions in the nature of interim relief for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. The question which we have to determine is whether directions in the nature of interim relief only could be granted under Article 226, when the Court expressly stated that it refrained from determining the rights of the parties on which a writ of mandamus or directions of a like nature could be issued. 15. In our opinion, Article 226 cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the application as the High Court has purported to do. The....