AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HYBRID MODE
This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi. The said order was passed on an application viz New IA(Co.Act)53/2026, filed under Rule 32 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 qua staying the operation, implementation and effect of the sale deed dated 27.01.2026 entered between the Sawhney Builders Pvt Ltd and PMR Agro Forestry LLP for the land bearing Khasra No.468, admeasuring 2530 square metres, situated at Village Morta, District Ghaziabad and further restraining the Respondent from creating any third party rights, interest or encumbrances over any assets of the company. There is a history to this application. It is submitted this piece of land was trying to be sold by the Respondents for Rs.4.38 crores but per order dated 26.03.2025 they made a statement before the Ld. NCLT they will not sell land to Mr. Rishab Jain and Poonam Kashyap. Thus on 26.03.2025 the following order was passed:
We have perused the alleged agreement to sale entered into between the company and one Mrs Poonam Kashyap and Mr. Rishabh Jain. This is a document by hand written and without any stamp paper. The said document also discloses receipt of payment by the Respondent Company. During the course of argument, Ld. Sr Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, instruction made a submission that Respondent company will not go ahead with this agreement and transaction anymore and the money collected by the company shall be refunded to the party and the same shall be completed within four weeks. It is the contention of the ld. counsel on behalf the applicant that they apprehend that in future also such kind of transaction may take place which affect their interest. However, on the other side, ld. senior counsel on behalf o f the Respondent company submitted that the company is entitled to do business in terms of their memorandum of association after following due process of law. Therefore, Respondents is directed that, if any. Transaction of sale or of land and other asset of company is taken in future, the same shall be done after following the due process in terms of law and it is made clear that in future if, it is found that the aany transaction has been conducted without following the due procedure, necessary consequenti9al shall follow. Since the present application has been filed due to the alleged transaction, for which ld. senior counsel on behalf of the Respondent has already given their undertaking that they will not go ahead and in view of the said submission, the present application is disposed of.
It is now submitted the respondents have now sold same piece of land at a much lower price of Rs.2.15 crores and have filed an application to set aside such sale or to restrain its further sale and such application is pending disposal before Ld. NCLT. The learned counsel for the Respondent submits there were reasons to sell this land at a lesser price and they shall disclose it only before Ld. NCLT and have rather filed a reply to this application. Valuation report of dated 16.03.2026 of M/s Abhimanyu Bhatia & Associates is relied upon by the appellants but no copy has been filed or provided to the learned counsel for the Respondent. Since the matter is pending before Ld. NCLT and is fixed for 25.03.2026, let all contentions be raised qua IA No.53/2026 before Ld. NCLT and we request Ld. NCLT to hear both the parties on the said date and to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. Copy of the valuation report be provided to the Respondent with liberty to rebut the same before the Ld. NCLT.
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
IAs No.1584, 1585 and 1586 of 2026 are disposed of.