$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 13/2017& I.A. 513/2017 (Stay)

RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Mr.

Gurtejpal Singh, Ms. Aashna Arora, Mr. Saurabh Jha and Mr.

Jai Dogra, Advocates.

Mr. Brijesh Singh Bhaduaria, IRP through video-

conferencing.

versus S.P. CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhushan Kapur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. Mr. Gurtejpal Singh, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, states that he has also been authorized by Mr. Brijesh Singh Bhadauria, Interim Resolution Professional [“IRP”] to appear on his behalf. He submits that in terms of the Order dated 02.09.2025, the mandate of the Resolution Professional was limited to only the collation of the claims.

2. He, thereafter, submits that in terms of the Order dated 27.10.2025 and in particular Paragraph No. 6 thereof, the IRP was to defend the Corporate Debtor in conjunction with the assistance drawn from the Directors, Officers and Employees of the Corporate Debtor.

The relevant extract of Order dated 27.10.2025 reads as under:

“6. We clarify that it shall be open for the Interim Resolution Professional to appear before the authorities where notices have been issued and defend the Corporate Debtor in accordance with law with the assistance of the Directors, Officers and Employees of the Corporate Debtor. It is clarified that insolvency having commenced, we have no doubt that the management of the Corporate Debtor shall not create any third party rights in the immovable properties.”

3. He thus submits that there is a hybrid model in effect which has been proposed by the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [“NCLAT”] in respect of the Corporate Debtor, i.e. the Petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contends that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (6) SCC 258, in particular Paragraph No. 97 thereof, the present proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Act on behalf of the Petitioner would also have to be stayed since the Company is currently undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [“CIRP”]. The relevant paragraph in P. Mohanraj & Ors. (supra) is reproduced herein under for ready reference:

“97. Shri Mehta then relied upon Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Jyoti Structures Ltd., in which the Delhi High Court held that a Section 34 application to set aside an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not be covered by Section 14 IBC. This Judgment does not state the law correctly as it is clear that a Section 34 proceeding is certainly a proceeding against the corporate debtor which may result in an arbitral award against the corporate debtor being upheld, as a result of which, monies would then be payable by the corporate debtor. A Section 34 proceeding is a proceeding against the corporate debtor in a court of law pertaining to a challenge to an arbitral award and would be covered just as an appellate proceeding in a decree from a suit would be covered. This judgment does not, therefore, state the law correctly.”

5. In view of the afore-mentioned position of law, the present proceedings are re-notified for 04.08.2026.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

JANUARY 27, 2026/tk/va/dj