$~C-3 & C-4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 475/2011, CO.APPL. 1287/2015 & OLR 38/2025 RE-SHAHI FASHIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through:

versus .... .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr.

Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates for OL.

Mr. Ajay Garg, Mr. Uday Garg, Advs. for Ex-director.

(C-4)

+ CRL.O.(CO.) 6/2016 SHAHI FASHION (P) LTD.(IN LIQN.) .....Petitioner Through:

versus YOGESH TEKRIWAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr.

Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates for OL.

Mr. Ajay Garg, Mr. Uday Garg, Advs. for Ex-director.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026 CO.APPL. 102/2026 (for condonation of delay) in CO.PET. 475/2011

1. The present application has been filed by the Official Liquidator [“OL”] seeking condonation of 58 days delay in filing the application under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956.

2. For reasons stated in the application, same is allowed, and the delay of 58 days is condoned.

3. Application stands disposed of.

CO.APPL. 103/2026 (U/S 481 of the Companies Act, 1956) in CO.PET.

475/2011

1. This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator (‘OL’) under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘Companies Act’) praying that Shahi Fashions (P) Ltd. (in liquidation) be dissolved and OL be discharged as its Liquidator.

2. It is stated that by order dated 03^rd September 2013, OL was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of the company, Shahi Fashions (P) Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “Company (in liqn.)”]. Citations were published in “Statesman” (English), Delhi edition & “Dainik Jagran” (Hindi), Delhi edition on 26^th December 2013 and in the “Delhi Gazette on 06^th February 2014. Vide order dated 20^th March 2014, the company was wound up and OL was appointed as its Liquidator. The citation was published in “Statesman” (English), Delhi edition & “Dainik Jagran”

(Hindi), Delhi edition on 01^st May 2014.

3. It is stated in the application that the ex-directors failed to file the Statement of Affairs within the statutory time prescribed under Section 454 of the Companies Act and failed to remove the defects therein; accordingly, a criminal complaint being CRL.O.(CO.) 6/2016 was filed by OL. A separate application has been filed in the said criminal complaint for disposing of the same.

4. It is stated in the present application that, as per the record of the Registrar of Companies (‘ROC’), the registered office of the Company (in liqn.) was situated at G-44, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi. Possession of the said premises could not be taken over as one Mr. Nirmal Ramuka stated that the Company was a tenant and had vacated the premises four years earlier. A letter dated 22^nd December 2017 was received from Mr. Nirmal Ramuka along with a copy of title deed in respect to the aforesaid property in favour of Mrs. Ganga Ram Devi, (mother of Mr. Nirmal Ramuka). Therefore, possession of the said property was not taken over by OL.

5. It is further stated in the said application that possession of the immoveable asset of Company (in liqn.) at Plot No. 40, Rai Industrial Estate, Sector-38, Phase-I Rai, Sonepat, Haryana, could not be taken over as the same was sold by the ex-director to one Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mahajan after the filing of the winding up petition. OL filed CO.APPL.1287/2015 seeking setting aside of the sale of the said plot. Subsequently, CO.APPL.603/2019 was filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mahajan, who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the plot in question, seeking vacation of the stay order passed by this Court.

6. This Court, vide order dated 14^th August 2019, held that the purchaser was bona fide; however, the ex-director was directed to give a detailed Statement of Account along with supporting bank transactions details. Upon receipt of certain documents from the ex-director, the same were examined by OL and an OLR No.7/2023 was filed. Same was considered by this Court and, vide order dated 17^th August 2023, the ex-