Case Law Details
Satinder Singh Bhasin Erstwhile Director of Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs Col Gautam Mullick & Ors (NCLAT Delhi)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, dismissed an application filed under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules by Satinder Singh Bhasin, an erstwhile director of Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The appellant sought permission to deposit ₹15.62 crore after the main appeal had been fully heard and reserved for judgment. The deposit was intended to demonstrate bona fides and secure a stay on the final order pronouncement.
The NCLAT held that once a matter is reserved for judgment, the rights and privileges of the parties to file new applications are forfeited. Citing judicial precedents, including Arjun Singh Vs Mohindra Kumar (1963) and Rajesh Dua Vs Rajiv Goyal (2024), the Tribunal affirmed there is no legal hiatus between the date of reservation and the date of pronouncement. The court emphasized that the stage for such submissions had passed. Consequently, the application was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
This application is moved by the appellant under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking permission to deposit a sum of Rs.15,62,00,000/-within a period of four weeks to demonstrate his bona fide that there is no default and consequently grant stay of pronouncement of final order in the present matter and the connected appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins)NO.1593 of 2023.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant though the total number of allottees who filed the Company Petition are shown to be 103 but the unsettled customers were only 55 and the amount due to them is Rs.62 crores and that without prejudice to the rights of the appellant, the appellant is inclined to deposit such amount in the Tribunal.
3. Admittedly the matter is already reserved for judgement after hearing both the parties and the question is such as application at this stage is if Since the appeal has been finally heard and the matter is now fixed for judgement, thus rights and the privileges of the parties are forfeited and it is only for the convenience of the Tribunal(s) under Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC, a judgement is permitted to be delivered after an interval upon completion of hearing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed there is no hiatus between the two stages of date on reservation of judgement and the date of pronouncement of judgement and that after the judgement is reserved, there remains no stage in any case and the parties have no rights/privileges left thereafter. Thus considering the law laid down in Arjun Singh Vs Mohindra Kumar and Ors 1963 SCC OnLine SC 43; Rajesh Dua Vs Rajiv Goyal and Anr 2024 SCC OnLine Del 454; Loramitra Rath (suspended director of Maa Durga Commotrade P Ltd ) Vs JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd and Anr 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2168 lays down above rule(s). Thus, there is no merit in the application and is dismissed.
Author Bio
