TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent Through: Ms. Tanya Chowdhary and Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocates Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocate for Official Liquidator Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Mr. Akshat Vachher, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Aman Vachher, Ms. Abhiti Vachher and Mr. Dhiraj, Advocates Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate for Creditors. JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, questioning the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein the Learned Single Judge has arrived at following conclusion: "I. The 7 Buyers' orders dated 02nd August 2018 and the order dated 12th October 2018 have attained fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s categorically stated that she has 'no objection' to the release of the plots in favour of the present applicants, as discussed in paragraphs 34 and 35. VIII. Objections raised by the ex-management are unmerited and have been also addressed by earlier decisions of this Court and the Division Bench. The same has been extensively discussed hereinabove in paragraphs 50 to 53.5. IX. Ms. Aneeta Sharma does not have any independent locus standi to maintain the present review petition. She was neither a party to the original proceedings nor an appellant in the appeal proceedings. Besides, her attempt to reopen issues which have already attained finality is just to prolong the proceedings and is severely detrimental to the intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant is in preferring this appeal. 5. Way back on 29th August 2003, the winding up order was passed with reference to the company in question. The Official Liquidator (OL) had taken over the entire assets of the company in question many years ago. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has been dealing with the claims of creditors. 6. To entertain, at this stage, any appeal by one of the former Directors on the basis that he was a major shareholder, cannot be legally countenanced. 7. In these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal.' 3. The learned counsel further invited our attention to the judgment pronounced on 16th January, 2026 delivered in Companies Appeal No. 29 of 2023 titled as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 7. As against above, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would oppose this contention, as according to him, the appeal is very much maintainable, it being a statutory right. According to him, no embargo can be read in the language of Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, to infer that the appeal is not maintainable. He would urge that the judgment referred to by the respondents is in the facts and circumstances of the case, as were existing at that relevant time. The learned counsel, so as to substantiate his claim that the appeal is maintainable, has drawn support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of 'Phatu Rochiram Mulchandani v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board And Others' reported in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e before the Apex Court. 9. We having considered the aforesaid contentions and the order of this Court dated 16th November, 2018 delivered in Company Appeal No. 24 of 2018, which was between the very same parties and in the very same facts and circumstances. The Division Bench of this Court has already held that the objections raised by Ex-Director, in his individual capacity, could not be entertained for want of locus standi. 10. Once the order dated 16th November, 2018 referred above has attained finality inter se the appellant and the official liquidator on the identical issue, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal by taking a different view. 11. The learned Single Judge has, in detail, dealt with the conduct of the a....