Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Transcon Skycity Private Limited vs Anchor Point Developers Private ... on 15 September, 2025
1
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.10114/2025
TRANSCON SKYCITY PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ANCHOR POINT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s)
(IA No. 186553/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 187760/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES & IA No. 186552/2025 - STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 15-09-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Appellant(s) :
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv.
Mr. Varun Nathani, Adv.
Ms. Himangi Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Ramneet Kaur, Adv.
Ms. Udita Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Kothari, Adv.
Mrs. Devanshi Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.
M/s. Trilegal Advocates On Record, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Signature Not Verified Our order dated 14-8-2025 reads thus:-
Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.09.16 18:41:56 IST Reason:“Heard Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-corporate debtor and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi & Mr. Navin Pahwa, the learned counsel appearing for the creditor. respondent-financial 2
2. In paragraphs 20 and 21 respectively of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the following has been observed: -
"20. In the facts of the present case, indubitably there was an out of court settlement between the two parties. It is also an undisputable was brought to the the settlement knowledge of the Adjudicating Authority. However, with the the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated had suo moto dispensed formal application to 8.04.2024 requirement for finding a place on record the Settlement Agreement. From the facts available on record there is also an admission on the part of the Appellant that there was an element of non-compliance on their obligations qua the Settlement Agreement in that the entire payment obligations by them to the Respondent had not yet been discharged. Given this backdrop satisfied that there was Settlement Agreement which was in the knowledge of the Adjudicating Authority at the time of filing the Withdrawal I.A. and that the Settlement Agreement obligations were admittedly not discharged by the Corporate Debtor.
21. What now remains to be seen is whether the Adjudicating Authority committed error any in allowing the Restoration LA of the Financial Creditor to revive the First CP for the original debt."
3. In view the afore-said, we would request the parties to sit, talk and try to bring around some workable solution.
4. If the parties are able to arrive at some settlement then well and good, otherwise we shall proceed to decide the neat question of law whether the original proceedings could have been ordered to be revived or not.
5. We grant three weeks' time to the parties to sit and talk.
6. In the meantime, both the sides may request the NCLT to adjourn the matter for a period of three weeks.
7. List the matter after three weeks.”
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for further hearing, Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant – Corporate Debtor submitted that despite best of the efforts, the parties have not been able to reach to any consensus.
3. He further pointed out that the High Court has kept the matter tomorrow in one of the suits pending between the parties.
34. He also informed us that the High Court is also trying its best to bring around a settlement between the parties.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Navin Pahwa, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Financial Creditor i.e. respondent – herein, submitted that they have a proposal to put forward for the purpose of settlement which the appellant may consider.
6. Our attention was drawn to Para 18 of the impugned order, more particularly the following:-
“It is the case of the financial creditor that pursuant to the settlement agreement, the corporate debtor had only paid Rs.23.75 crore and an amount of Rs.34.27 Crore (Principal:
Rs.13,01,57,725/- and interest Rs.21,25,78,904/-) was still due and payable by the Corporate Debtor.
7. According to Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Pahwa, the appellant – corporate debtor must pay the principal amount and has left the interest amount to us. In other words, to our discretion.
8. We are of the view that there is still some scope for the parties to talk and resolve the dispute.
9. In such circumstances, we refer the parties for mediation.
10. We request Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S.Oka, the former Judge of this Court to act as a Mediator between the parties.
11. The terms of the mediation shall be fixed by the parties in consultation with the learned Mediator.
12. The expenses shall be equally borne by both the parties.
13. Once the report of the learned Mediator comes on record, we shall proceed further with the matter.
14. Since we are referring the matter for mediation, we leave it to the learned Mediator to resolve all the controversies between the parties that would include global as well as the present case.
15. Since the parties have been referred for mediation, the NCLT may not proceed further in the matter.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)