Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Achal Kumar Jindal vs Evaan Holdings Pvt. Ltd on 24 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
SLP(C) No. 4349/2025
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4349/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-02-2025
in LPA No. 1083/2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi]
ACHAL KUMAR JINDAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
EVAAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 40785/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No. 41789/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 24-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv.
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR
Mr. Shivam Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Kashitij Joshi, Adv.
Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Adv.
Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Annirudh Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Devika Mohan, Adv.
Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Adv.
Ms. Ekssha Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Signature Not Verified Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.02.28
Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
16:20:53 IST
Reason:
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., AOR
1
SLP(C) No. 4349/2025
Mr. Arijit Maitra, Adv.
Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR
Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv. **
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. K. P. Rustom Khan, Adv.
Mr. M. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kaustubh Chouhan, Adv.
Mr. Kartikey, Adv.
Ms. Gayatri Aggarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
In this matter, several issues and questions have been raised for consideration. Notably, the scope and ambit of the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi dated 26.10.2024 is under scrutiny, particularly in the light of the ongoing proceedings concerning oppression and mismanagement before the National Company Law Tribunal1/ National Company Law Appellate Tribunal2, which are currently seized of the matter. The primary prayer in the writ petition pertains to the alleged inaction or failure on the part of the Reserve Bank of India3 in fulfilling its obligations. However, it is pertinent to note that the interim directions issued by the learned Judge appear to address and adjudicate all issues and contentions inter se the parties, including those that are sub-judice before the NCLT/NCLAT and the RBI.
Issue notice, returnable in the week commencing 14.04.2025. 1 “NCLT”, for short.
2 “NCLAT”, for short.
3 “RBI”, for short.
2 SLP(C) No. 4349/2025 Notice is accepted by Mr. Sahil Tagotra and Mr. Soumik Ghosal, learned counsel, who are present in Court on advance notice/caveat for respondent Nos. 1 and 8 respectively. Hence, notice need not be served on these respondents.
Respondent No. 2, RBI, is represented upon notice being issued to it by this Court, vide order dated 17.02.2025. Notice shall be served upon the unrepresented respondents by all modes, including dasti, upon steps being taken within ten days from today.
As an interim measure, the following directions are issued: -
(i) There shall be stay of operation of the directions issued in the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9877/2024, which supersedes the Board of Directors of respondent No. 7, Exclusive Capital Limited, and appoints an Interim Committee of Administrators4. For the time being and till the date of this order, the payments to be made to the ICA, as per the said order, shall be borne by the writ petitioner.
(ii) The orders passed by the NCLAT in relation to the appointment of the Observer, including the directions and powers given to such Observer,
4 “ICA”, for short.
3 SLP(C) No. 4349/2025
shall, however, continue to operate.
(iii) Till the next date of hearing in the present special leave petition, we find it appropriate to direct that the respondent No. 7, Exclusive Capital Limited, shall continue with its day-to- day business activities. However, it shall not enter into any financial transaction exceeding ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) without prior notice to the Observer. If the Observer deems it appropriate, he may bring the details of such transaction to the notice of the NCLT, where proceedings under Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, are pending. The NCLT may, thereupon, pass appropriate orders.
(iv) The proceedings before the RBI, pursuant to its show-cause notice and in view of the liberty granted by this Court, vide order dated 17.02.2025, shall continue and appropriate orders shall be passed, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
(v) The observations recorded in the order passed by the learned single Judge and in the impugned judgment will not influence the RBI when it takes a decision. The RBI shall also not be influenced 4 SLP(C) No. 4349/2025 by this order, granting stay. It shall take an independent decision on the merits of the matter and proceed in accordance with law.
(vi) Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner and the shareholders, who have moved the NCLT, to move an application before the NCLT/NCLAT seeking appropriate directions. If any such application is filed, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law, without being influenced by the impugned judgment, including the order of the learned single Judge and the present order, granting stay.
(vii) The proceedings before the NCLT/NCLAT may continue. It will be equally open to the petitioner before us, who is the respondent before the NCLT and the petitioner before the NCLAT, to contest/pursue the proceedings.
(DEEPAK GUGLANI) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
** No online appearance/physical appearance slip received 5