Delhi High Court - Orders
Getamber Anand And Others vs Vaibhav Raheja on 11 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 868/2025
GETAMBER ANAND AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kartik Nayar, Mr. Krish Kalra,
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Mr. Kashish Bansal,
Mr. Divyansh Rai and Mr. Vaibhav
Luthra, Advocates
versus
VAIBHAV RAHEJA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Mr.
Vivek Kumar and Mr. Alankrit
Bhatnagar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 11.02.2025 CRL.M.A. 4033/2025 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 868/20251. The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter "BNSS") [earlier under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C")] has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking following reliefs:
"a) Pass an order thereby quashing/setting aside the Impugned Order 05.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No 305 of 2024 and the Impugned order dated 03.07.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC, Saket Court, New Delhi in CC NI Act 121/2020.
b) Pass an order directing that during the pendency of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 22:17:36 Personal Insolvency Petitions against the Petitioner No. 1 in RCP (IB) No. 17/2024 and Petitioner No. 3 in CP (IB) No. 289 of 2024 before the NCLT, Delhi the proceedings in CC NI Act 121/2020 cannot be continued by the Ld. Trial Court; or
c) Pass any order which this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and appropriate and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Heard.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr. Surayansh Vashisth, learned counsel for respondent accepted notice and vehemently opposed the instant petition. He prayed for 10 day's time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within the time as prayed for. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
5. List on 18th March, 2025.
CRL.M.A.4034/2025 (for stay)
6. The instant application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioners/applicants seeking following reliefs:
"(i) Allow the present Application and pass an order staying the proceedings in C.C. NI Act 121 of 2020 titled „Vaibhav Raheja v. ATS Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors‟ pending before the Ld. JMFC, Saket Court, New Delhi during the pendency of the accompanying proceedings; and
(ii) Allow the present Application and pass an order staying the proceedings operation of Impugned Order 05.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2024 and order dated 03.07.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC, Saket Court, New Delhi in CC NI Act 121/2020; and
(iii) Pass ex-parte ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (i) and
(ii) above;
(iv) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the instant matter is This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 22:17:36 listed today before the learned Trial Court at 02:00 PM and prayed for the stay of proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court.
8. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the case of Sheetal Gupta v. National Spot Exchange Ltd and Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3095, wherein the Bombay High Court vide order dated 10th January, 2025 held that Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter "IBC") barred the proceedings under Sections 94 and 95 of the IBC against the Company. It is also submitted that an SLP was preferred against the said order, however, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. It is further submitted that this Court has taken a contradictory view in the case of Sandeep Gupta v. Shri Ram Steel Traders & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2786, which was rendered in the context of Section 94 of the IBC, however, vide order dated 17th December, 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reserved the said matter for pronouncement while passing the interim direction to stay the proceedings before the learned Trial Court.
10. Per Contra, Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned senior counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the applicants as well as the contents of the instant petition and submitted that Section 96 of the IBC does not bar the proceedings against the Company or Directors of the Company.
11. In support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel for the respondent referred the judgment passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jitender Singh Sodhi and Anr. vs. Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax and Anr., 2024 PHHC 041249 as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sandeep Gupta (supra), which This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 22:17:37 deals with the similar issue as the instant case, no interim protection was given.
12. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case is made out for granting of the interim protection for the applicants.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments relied upon by them.
14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the fact that the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court today at 2:00 PM, the proceedings qua the Directors against whom the insolvency proceedings have been initiated are kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing.
15. It is made clear that the proceedings qua the Company and the other Directors may continue in accordance with law.
16. Since the matter is kept in abeyance for further adjudication on legal as well as factual position, learned Trial Court is directed not to pass any final order till the next date of hearing.
17. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court, if it deems fit to pass any interim directions, the same may be passed in accordance with law.
18. List on 18th March, 2025.
19. Copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of Court Master.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2025
Rt/mk Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 22:17:37