SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
COSMIC VICTIMS ASSOCIATION VS. COSMIC STRUCTURES LIMITED
CO.APPL.(M) 2/2023



$~C-1 to C-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.APPL.(M) 6/2022, CO.APPL. 723/2023, CO.APPL. 465/2024 COSMIC VICTIMS ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kalyan Dutt, Adv.

versus COMIC STRUCTURES LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv.

for OL.

Mr. Shlok Chandra, Mr. Parikshit Singh Bhati, Ms. Lolita Crasta, Advs.

(2)

+ CO.APPL.(M) 7/2022 MEMBERS OF ASSETS REVIVAL SOCIETY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mridula Agarwal, Adv.

versus COSMIC STRUCTURES LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv.

for OL.

(3)

+ CO.APPL.(M) 2/2023 & CO.APPL. 225/2024 COSMIC VICTIMS ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through:

versus COSMIC STRUCTURES LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv.

for OL.

(4)

+ CO.APPL.(M) 3/2023, CO.APPL. 993/2023, CO.APPL. 52/2024 CO.APPL. 659/2024 RAJNI ANAND .....Petitioner Through:

versus COSMIC STRUCTURES LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv.

for OL.

Mr. Aditya Maheshwari, Mr.

Shashwat Mukherjee, Advs.

(5)

+ CO.PET. 152/2016, CO.APPL. 890/2017, CO.APPL. 2037/2017, CO.APPL. 1410/2018, CO.APPL. 822/2019, CO.APPL. 823/2019, CO.APPL. 932/2019, CO.APPL. 1266/2019, CO.APPL. 11/2020 CO.APPL. 12/2020, CO.APPL. 47/2020, CO.APPL. 423/2020, CO.APPL. 441/2020, CO.APPL. 453/2020, CO.APPL. 663/2020, CO.APPL. 317/2024, CO.APPL. 320/2024, CO.APPL. 346/2024, CO.APPL. 132/2025, CO.APPL. 208/2025, CO.APPL. 257/2025, CO.APPL. 634/2025, CO.APPL. 798/2025, CO.APPL. 800/2025, CO.APPL. 803/2025, OLR 119/2018, OLR 159/2018, OLR 125/2019, OLR 310/2019 & OLR 40/2020 RAJNI ANAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Ms. Nitika Dubey, Advs.

versus COSMIC STRUCTURES LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv.

for OL.

Mr. Harshit Goyal, Adv.

Mr. Daljeet Kaur, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advs. for applicant in CO.APPL.801/2025.

Mr. Suneet Kumar Aggarwal, Adv.

Mr. Anubhav Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Swati Verma, Adv.

Ms. Yogyata Jhunjhunwala, Adv. for Smt. Sushila, & Mr. Naresh Kumar Godara.

Mr.Tushar Agarwal, Mr. Arun Kumar, Advs.

(6)

+ CRL.M.(CO.) 1/2023, CO.APPL. 517/2025(CM For Restoration)

CO.APPL. 519/2025 CASAITALIA SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.

versus ANUJ GAUR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv.

for OL.

(7)

+ CRL.O.(CO.) 11/2017 & CO.APPL. 1547/2017 COSMIC STRUCTURE LTD.(IN PROV.LIQN.) .....Petitioner Through:

versus SUSHANT MUTTREJA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv.

for OL.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CO.APPL.(M) 6/2022, CO.APPL.(M) 7/2022, CO.APPL.(M) 2/2023 &

CO.APPL.(M) 3/2023 and CO.APPL. 510/2025 in CO.PET. 152/2016

1. These applications have been filed by respective parties propounding schemes for revival of the specific real estate projects, which belong to company in liquidation.

2. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Senior Standing Counsel for Official Liquidator (‘OL’) points out that previous applications for acceptance of the Schemes were rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 6th April 2022 in CO.APPL. (M) 1/2020, order dated 26th April 2022 in CO.APPL. (M) 2/2020, order dated 30th August 2022 in CO.APPL. (M) 3/2022, order dated 4th November 2022 in CO.APPL. (M) 3/2022, and order dated 5th September 2022 in CO.APPL. (M) 4/2022.

3. The crux of all these decisions, rejecting the schemes, was that no upfront payments were envisaged in the schemes. The schemes were entirely dependent on leveraging the properties by mortgaging them to financial institutions and utilizing the land area as well as the unsold inventory for that purpose.

4. The other concern was that working capital was proposed to be raised for a period of five years, and would involve an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top