$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 13.01.2026 + CO.APP. 36/2024 SWATANTRA BATRA .....Appellant Through: Mr Uddhav Pratap, Advocate.

versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Ms Ruchi Sindhwani, SSC and Ms Megha Bharara, Advocate for OL.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL CM APPL. 42399/2025 (filing) and CM APPL. 73510/2024 (re-filing)

1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 209 days in refilling and the delay of 45 days in filing this appeal stand condoned.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

CO.APP. 36/2024

3. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed challenging the order dated 08.02.2024 (impugned order) passed in Co. Application No.65/2018 filed by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge has decided the said application along with the connected applications by inter alia, stating in paragraphs no.1 to 3 of the impugned order, as under:-

“1. The present applications have been filed by the applicants/claimants with regard to their respective claims relating to the plots of land/properties out of the large chunk of land belonging to the respondent/ company (in liquidation) at Haridwar, State of Uttarakhand.

2. Although a request is made on behalf of these applicants that Mr. Ashwin Chaudhaty, Advocate is unwell and is not appearing in Court today, this Court finds that in view of the previous direction of this Court dated 28.11.2023, the reliefs Claimed in these applications are no longer sustainable. Evidently, the claims of the respective patties in each of these applications have already been considered by the Official Liquidator and appropriate directions have been passed. In case, any of the applicants are aggrieved of the impugned rejection or partial admission of their claims, they are at liberty to file a statutory appeal in terms of Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

3. The said applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

5. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Official Liquidator has rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not filed the relevant original documents. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready and willing to file the relevant original documents before the Official Liquidator for his consideration.

6. During the course of the hearing, our attention has been drawn to an order dated 19.03.2024 in Co Appeal No.5/2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devender Singh Rawat v. M/s Vian Infrastructure Ltd & Others, 2024:DHC:2298-DB, which was in regard to Co Application No.1895/2017, which has also been decided by the impugned order. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, on similar submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in that appeal, has disposed of the appeal by giving the opportunity to the appellant to produce such other original documents including the receipts that the appellant may have, with the Official Liquidator within a period of two weeks from the date of said order.

7. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has made similar submission and the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has no objection to the same, we grant two weeks from today to the appellant to submit the relevant original documents with the Official Liquidator for the Official Liquidator to consider the same, in accordance with law.

8. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JANUARY 13, 2026 M