Delhi High Court - Orders
L.R. Builders Private Limited vs Mr. Kamal Kumar Gupta & Ors on 16 December, 2025
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 8996/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37599/2025
L.R. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Mr. Pawan
Narang, , Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advs. with
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Mr. Anish Dewan,
Mr. Abhishek Mishra , Ms. Muskan Puri and
Ms. Bhumika Popli, Advs.
versus
MR. KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sujoy Datta, Mr. Kartik Malhotra and
Mr. Abhishek Chhabra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER
% 16.12.2025 CRL.M.A. 37600/2025, CRL.M.A. 37601/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37602/2025 (Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 8996/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37599/2025 (Stay)
3. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned ASJ 04, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), in Crl. Revision no. 638/2025, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent was held to be maintainable, and the trial with respect to the Section 452(2) Companies 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 18/12/2025 at 20:45:28 Act, 2013, application instituted by the petitioner was stayed to the extent of passing of any final orders until the next date of hearing in the same revision petition before the learned ASJ, i.e., 23.04.2026.
4. A succinct reproduction of facts, as gathered from the order under challenge, is that a complaint was filed under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023, by the petitioner, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 452 (1)/ 447/ 448 of the Companies Act, along with Sections 316/318/319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. The learned ACJM (Spl. Act), Central, vide order dated 06.10.2025, summoned accused nos. 1 to 5 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 452 of the Companies Act.
6. It is this order, which has been assailed in revision before the learned ASJ 04, it is noted that in the interregnum between filing of the revision petition and the pronouncement of the impugned order, the petitioner filed Crl. MC no. 8092/2025 before this Court, wherein this Court directed the revisional court to take up and decide the issue of maintainability of the revision petition at the first instance vide order dated 17.11.2025.
7. It was based on these directions that the impugned order had been passed.
8. At the outset, the learned ASJ chose to discuss the implications of the amendments incorporated into the Companies Act in 2021 on the jurisdictional maintainability of the revision petition. The revisional court, for this purpose, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Kannan Devan Hills Plantaations v Anthony Das & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine Kerala 6871.
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 18/12/2025 at 20:45:28
9. Thereafter, at paragraph 17 of the impugned order, the learned ASJ held that offences under Section 452 of the Companies Act may be tried by the jurisdictional magistrate, per the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, at the place where the offence is said to have been committed. The learned ASJ held that the committee set up by the Delhi High Court vide order dt. 15.10.2009 to deal with cases arising from special acts (including the Companies Act), and that this allocation of work was purely administrative and could not be equated with a specific court, as a statutory notification under Section 435 of the Companies Act would be required for the same, and that this allocation was prior to the coming into force of the Companies Act and subsequent amendment.
10. The learned ASJ held, at paragraph 20 of the order under challenge, that the sum and substance of the discussion on the amendment to the Companies Act and notification of this Court was to conceive that an offence under Section 452 of the Companies Act could be said to have been committed at the place of the registered office of the company, or, at the place where the property is situated, and that this conclusion is sustained through a reading of Section 178 of the CrPC.
11. It was then observed that the registered office of the company was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Central District, and that the learned ACJM (Spl. Act) had the requisite jurisdiction to summon the accused and try offences punishable under Section 452 of the Companies Act.
12. It was further observed that there was no question of construing that the order passed by the learned ACJM was one passed by a special court under the Companies Act, given that no notification was passed designating 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 18/12/2025 at 20:45:28 the court as a special court. Therefore, revision would not be barred against that order under Section 437 of the Companies Act.
13. Therefore, the learned ASJ held, that it was possessed of the requisite jurisdiction to hear the revision petition.
14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before this Court, Mr. Parag Tripathi, assails the order of the learned ASJ on the following fronts:
a. That the learned ASJ erroneously treated maintainability of the revision petition as an entitlement of the Respondent to a relief of stay of final adjudication in the application filed under Section 452(2) of the Companies Act.
b. That the only issue which was subject to revision and raised before the revisional court was on the question of whether the learned ACJM had the requisite jurisdiction to pass the order in question. c. That the stay granted was on the application under Section 452(2) of the Companies Act, while the order of the ACJM under challenge before the revision court arose out of the application under Section 452(1).
d. Reliance is placed upon Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. V State of W.B., (2020) 18 SCC 568, to argue that Section 452(2) of the Companies Act is a summary remedy for the quick restoration of corporate property, and that the same ought to be decided during trial and not be kept in abeyance.
e. That a revision petition cannot be filed after a quashing petition is withdrawn, save, where liberty is granted, and that no such liberty was granted by the High Court.
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 18/12/2025 at 20:45:28
15. Issue notice.
16. Mr. Sujoy Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, accepts notice and is being led by Mr. Apurv Kurup, learned senior counsel who advanced his submissions on the following fronts:
a. That the controversy may be cut short by expediting the final hearing of the revision petition, instead of proceeding with the date already fixed, i.e., 23.04.2026.
b. That the revision petition was rightly held to be maintainable. c. That the ad-interim relief of the learned ASJ by restraining the learned ACJM from passing any final order on the application filed under Section 452(2) of the act was justified and within the revisionist court's power.
d. That, by and large, no ingredients have been made out qua Section 452 of the Companies Act, and that the petitioner's reliance on Hooghly Mills (supra) is Hooghly Mills being a case where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, and where a situation of a pending revision was not contemplated.
17. Heard and perused.
18. While learned Senior Counsel have agitated issues innumerable, accompanied by a sizeable barrage of allegations and counter-allegations, this Court confines itself to the limited point of whether the impugned order suffered from any infirmity which would warrant the exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS.
19. The only infirmity that this Court takes note of is the act of the learned ASJ in staying the proceedings under Section 452(2) while deciding the jurisdictional maintainability of the revision petition before it.
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 18/12/2025 at 20:45:28
20. This Court agrees with learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner's reliance placed upon Hooghly Mills to the extent of holding that Section 452(2) of the Companies Act (erstwhile Section 630(2)) is a means of expeditious recovery of company property, and that it is incorrect to await the completion of trial for offences alleged under Section 452(1) before an application under Section 452(2) is adjudicated in finality.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition stands partially allowed to the extent of vacation of the stay on the final adjudication of the petitioner's application under Section 452(2) of the Companies Act.
22. The learned ACJM vide order dated 06.12.2025 has fixed the next date of hearing of the Section 452(2) Companies Act application as 04.02.2026. This Court deems it appropriate to expedite the same, thereby cancelling 04.02.2026 as the next date before the learned ACJM for hearing of the Section 452(2) Companies Act application, with a new date being fixed for 22.12.2025. Parties/their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned ACJM on 22.12.2025 at 10:00 AM.
23. The learned ACJM is directed to decide the same expeditiously.
24. This petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
25. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned ACJM and the learned ASJ concerned.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J DECEMBER 16, 2025/ar/av 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 18/12/2025 at 20:45:28