Technology Development Board v. Sh. Santosh Diraj Pathak

$~72 to 75, 78 & 81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5535/2024 and CRL.M.A. 21120/2024 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Mohd.

Noumaan, Mr. Paras Manchanda and Mr. Yashasavi Tandon, Advocates.

versus SH. SANTOSH DIRAJ PATHAK .....Respondent Through:

Mr. L.M. Grover, Advocate via video-conferencing.

+ CRL.M.C. 5537/2024 and CRL.M.A. 21122/2024 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Mohd.

Noumaan, Mr. Paras Manchanda and Mr. Yashasavi Tandon, Advocates.

versus SH. SANTOSH DIRAJ PATHAK .....Respondent Through:

Mr. L.M. Grover, Advocate via video-conferencing.

+ CRL.M.C. 5538/2024 and CRL.M.A. 21125/2024 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Mohd.

Noumaan, Mr. Paras Manchanda and Mr. Yashasavi Tandon, Advocates.

versus SH. SANTOSH DIRAJ PATHAK .....Respondent Through:

Mr. L.M. Grover, Advocate via video-conferencing.

+ CRL.M.C. 5539/2024 and CRL.M.A. 21126/2024 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Mohd.

Noumaan, Mr. Paras Manchanda and Mr. Yashasavi Tandon, Advocates.

CRL.M.C. 5535/2024 & Conn. Page 1 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

versus SH. SANTOSH DIRAJ PATHAK .....Respondent Through:

Mr. L.M. Grover, Advocate via video-conferencing.

+ CRL.M.C. 5557/2024 and CRL.M.A. 21183/2024 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Mohd.

Noumaan, Mr. Paras Manchanda and Mr. Yashasavi Tandon, Advocates.

versus SH. SANTOSH DIRAJ PATHAK .....Respondent Through:

Mr. L.M. Grover, Advocate via video-conferencing.

+ CRL.M.C. 5568/2024 and CRL.M.A. 21216/2024 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Mohd.

Noumaan, Mr. Paras Manchanda and Mr. Yashasavi Tandon, Advocates.

versus SH. SANTOSH DIRAJ PATHAK .....Respondent Through:

Mr. L.M. Grover, Advocate via video-conferencing.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 22.07.2024 Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners informs the court that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had stayed proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, pending before her vide impugned order dated 04.06.2024 in view of the pendency of an application under section 94(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('IBC'), read with Rule 6 (1) of the Insolvency and CRL.M.C. 5535/2024 & Conn. Page 2 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for IRP for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ('NCLT').

Mr. Sawhney however informs the court that the NCLT has now rejected the application filed by the respondent under section 94(1) of the IBC by reason of which the proceedings before the learned Magistrate in Ct. Case Nos. 37440-16, 40707-16, 40709-16, 40710-16,47148-16 & 47149-16 titled Technology Development Board vs. M/s Gujarat Oleo Chem Ltd & Ors., would now proceed. Counsel submits that therefore the present petitions have been rendered infructuous and may be disposed-of as such. Petitions are accordingly disposed-of as infructuous. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JULY 22, 2024 V.Rawat CRL.M.C. 5535/2024 & Conn. Page 3 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.