Swatantra Batra Vs Official Liquidator & Ors.: Delhi High Court permits late filing of original land documents in liquidation matter

Background of the Appeal

The matter in Swatantra Batra Vs Official Liquidator & Ors. came before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court as an appeal instituted under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal assailed an order dated 08.02.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in Co. Application No.65/2018, arising out of the liquidation proceedings of a company owning a substantial tract of land situated at Haridwar, State of Uttarakhand.

The controversy centered around claims made by various parties, including the appellant, in respect of specific plots or portions carved out of this larger landholding of the company in liquidation. These claims were being processed in the context of winding up, with the Official Liquidator examining and adjudicating upon the assertions of right and entitlement put forth by different claimants.

Before delving into the merits, the Division Bench was first required to address issues relating to delay in the institution and refiling of the appeal.

Condonation of Delay in Filing and Refilling

Two applications were moved before the Division Bench seeking:

  • Condonation of 209 days’ delay in refiling the appeal; and
  • Condonation of 45 days’ delay in filing the appeal.

Upon considering the reasons set out in these applications, the Court accepted that sufficient cause had been shown. Accordingly:

  1. The delay of 209 days in refiling and 45 days in filing the appeal was condoned.
  2. The applications seeking condonation were disposed of upon allowing this relief.

This preliminary step cleared the procedural hurdle and enabled the Court to take up the appeal itself, registered as Co. APP. 36/2024, for consideration on its limited grounds.

Impugned Order of the Single Judge

The appeal was directed against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. In that order, the Single Judge dealt with Co. Application No.65/2018 and several connected applications involving similar issues, namely, competing or individual claims over plots of land forming part of the company’s property at Haridwar.

The Single Judge, in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the impugned order, recorded the nature of the applications and the Court’s reasoning. These paragraphs expressly noted that:

  • The applications were filed by claimants relating to their alleged rights in plots or properties forming part of the larger landholding of the company (in liquidation) at Haridwar.
  • A request was made that the counsel for those claimants, namely Mr. Ashwin Chaudhaty, Advocate, was unwell and not present.
  • Despite this, the Court relied on earlier directions dated 28.11.2023 and observed that the reliefs sought in those applications were not maintainable any longer.
  • It was also recognized that the Official Liquidator had already examined the claims of the concerned parties in each of those matters and had taken decisions, including cases of rejection or partial admission.
  • As a result, any party aggrieved by such rejection or partial acceptance of claim was left free to pursue a statutory appeal in terms of Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

On that basis, the Single Judge disposed of the applications, effectively indicating that the proper recourse for dissatisfied claimants lay in the statutory appellate framework under Rule 164 rather than further interlocutory applications in the company proceedings.

Grievance Raised by the Appellant Before the Division Bench

In the appeal under Section 483, the principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was narrow and specific. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that: