M/S JAYPEE INFRATECH LTD. THRU. ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI RAJUL JAIN v. ATUL KUMAR VERMA AND 3 OTHERS
A227/1739/2025 · 2025-04-01
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131002 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131002 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17921 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1739 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Shri Rajul Jain Respondent :- Atul Kumar Verma And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Tripathi,Ankit Bharti,Inam Uddin Ahmed Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the NCDRC in Revision Petition No.2616 of 2024, wherein it has refused to interfere with the orders dated 07.03.2024 and 14.08.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The said orders are on record as Annexure No.2. By means of the said order, the SCDRC had passed an order of depositing 50% of the decretal amount within 30 days, which was further directed to be kept in FDR in a nationalized bank and was prohibited to be released to the respondent. The said order was affirmed by the NCDRC.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the resolution plan, which was duly approved, the fact reveals that respondent No.1 had applied before IRP and the resolution plan was approved after considering the majority version and once the resolution plan has been accepted, the SCDRC and the NCDRC were not justified in directing the deposit 50% of the amount.
4. Considering the said submissions, prima facie from the two orders, it is revealed that as an interim measure, the petitioner is
directed to deposit 50% of the amount, which was directed to be kept in an interest bearing account in a nationalized bank. A specific direction was prescribed for not releasing the amount to the respondent. Considering the fact that it is only an interim
order, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same.
5. The petition lacks merit for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench