CM(M)/4230/2024 of PRANAV ANSAL Vs AMIT KUMAR & ANR.
Parties
- PRANAV ANSAL (PETITIONER)
- AMIT KUMAR & ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Statutes cited (2)
- indian penal code (1860)
- companies act (2013)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 4230/2024 CM APPL. 76691-76693/2024
PRANAV ANSAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Mansi Sharma, Mr. Nishaank Mattoo and Mr. Rishabh Manjul, Advs. Mattoo and Mr. Rishabh Manjul, Advs.
versus
AMIT KUMAR & ANR.
Through:
.....Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R R% 03.01.2025CM APPL. 76692-76693/2024 (Exemptions)
1.Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions.
2.Applications stand disposed of, accordingly. CM(M) 4230/2024 along with CM APPL. 76691/2024 (Stay)CM(M) 4230/2024 along with CM APPL. 76691/2024 (Stay)
1.This petition has been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 20[th]December 2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in EA No.123/2024 in CC No.80/2020. Vide the said impugned order, the DCDRC had issued non-bailable warrants, against the petitioner, in complaint filed by, one Amit Kumar against Ansal Hi-Tech Township Limited.
2.Ms. Mansi Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner points out to the records of the ROC, as per which, the petitioner is not director in the said company. Further, she contends that on previous occasion, the DCDRC in
another case, where the said company was judgment debtor, had stayed the issue of execution of non-bailable warrants by order dated 27[th] September 2024, on the same basis, that the petitioner was neither director nor shareholder in the said company, as also that, personal insolvency proceedings under Section 95(1) IBC had been initiated against the petitioner by the Indian Bank, pending before the NCLT.
3.Considering that similar circumstances prevail in the matter, it is directed that the cancellation application moved by the petitioner, be considered by the DCDRC, within the next four weeks.
4.In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the disposal of the said application.
5.Needless to state, the petitioner will always be at liberty to challenge orders passed by DCDRC in an appeal before the State Commission, in accordance with law.
6.Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
7.Dasti.
8.Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JANUARY 3, 2025/MK/kp