AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
19.07.2023: Heard Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Prashant Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4 & 6. The present appeal has been preferred against an Interlocutory order dated 13.04.2023 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court –III. The impugned order is reproduced herein below:
This application has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 6 seeking withdrawal of the undertaking dated 21.11.2022.
The undertaking recorded in the order dated 21.11.2022 is as follows:
"The Respondent has submitted that the Respondent shall not take any steps for creating third party rights of the land, in question, in the meantime."
This application was heard on 03.03.2023, 20.03.2023 and 23.03.2023. Today, when the matter was called out, no one was present for arguing the matter. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the order dated 21.11.2022 should be modified and the undertaking given by Ld. Counsel be directed to be withdrawn.
Considering the fact that no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents in the present application which is a part heard matter, we deem it appropriate to modify the order dated 21.11.2022 to the extent indicated below, so far as the undertaking given by Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent:-
"The Respondent shall not take any steps for creating third party rights of the land with respect to 20% share of 9.06 Hacters of the land in question as claimed by the Applicant till further orders."
List the matter on 22.05.2023.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant tried to persuade the court that fraudulently the land in question was marked in the name of Respondent No. 1/Company and moreover while the matter was fixed for hearing before the NCLT the earlier undertaking given by the Respondent was modify by the impugned order on the prayer made by the Respondent. It was argued that only for short period there was no reason for modifying the earlier order.
On perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant had claimed 20% shares in the undivided property on the basis of family settlement deed dated 24.07.1995. It is further evident from the pleading that on 05.01.2008 a settlement deed was prepared wherein Appellants were shown as if they were willing to relinquish their rights over the subject land in favour of Respondent No.1/Company. It has been pleaded in the appeal that said settlement deed dated 05.01.2008 was fabricated and forged one. The Appellants have also filed number of complaints and initiated criminal proceedings.
However, on going through the impugned order it is evident that 20% share of the Appellant has been protected by the impugned order. Without recording any opinion either on Settlement deed dated 24.07.1995 or Settlement deed dated 05.01.2008, we are of the view that since the claim of appellants regarding 20% right has been preserved by the impugned order which is interim in nature there is no reason to interfere with the same. All the issues are left open to be examined by the Ld. NCLT.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.