HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 26964 of 2024 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Satinder Singh Bhasin, Ms. Saloni Mathur, Mr. Praney Sharma, Ms. Tanya Makker, Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned Advocates on behalf of petitioner No.1, Mr. Nipun Singh, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Tanmay Sadh & Mr. Subham Agarwal, learned Advocates on behalf of petitioner No.2/IRP, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raghav Dwivedi and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned Advocates on behalf of intervenor/recall applicant, DS Chewing Products LLP, Mr. A.K. Mehrotra and Mr. Srijan Mehrotra, learned Advocates on behalf of the intervenors/allottees, Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Swapnil Kumar, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2, UPSIDC, and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent State. Civil Misc. Intervention Application No.12 of 2025 2. This application has been filed by DS Chewing Products LLP seeking to intervene in the present writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is a major shareholder in the petitioner company. He further submits that the petitioner company and sister concern have gone into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and by an order dated December 4, 2023, petition under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'IBC') has been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shubham Agarwal, Aditya Yadav, Raghav Dwivedi, Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Srijan Mehrotra, Swapnil Kumar Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt Ltd .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) admitted and Insolvency Resolution Professional (for short 'IRP') has been appointed along with an order having been passed under Section 14 of the IBC. He further submits that since the applicant is a major shareholder, it should be allowed to be added as a party. 3. We see no objection in adding the applicant as a party. Accordingly, the intervention application is allowed. Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 14 of 2025 4. Another impleadment application has been filed by Rajveer Singh and 24 others who are the allottees of the flats/office places built by petitioner company. They also want to be added as party so that they can make their submissions. 5. In the interest of justice, this application is allowed. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.21 of 2025 6. We have perused the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and find that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the recall application. Accordingly, the delay in filing the recall application is condoned. 7. The application is allowed. Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 22 of 2025 8. The newly added respondent being DS Chewing Products LLP has filed an application for recall of the the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated May 1, 2025. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the writ petition has been filed by the suspended directors who had got suspended due to the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'NCLT') dated December 4, 2023. He submits that since the company has gone into the insolvency, any action that is to be taken has to be taken by the IRP and none else. 10. He relies upon the orders passed by National Company Law Tribunal WRIC No. 26964 of 2024 2 (NCLAT) dated March 7, 2025 that specifically clarifies this point stating that even though the IRP had been precluded by order dated December 7, 2023 from taking steps qua inviting claims, constituting of committee of creditors, etc. but that could not mean that the suspended board shall be in charge of assets of the corporate debtor (the petitioner herein). 11. It is trite law that the moment a company goes into insolvency and an IRP is appointed, the management of the affairs of the company along with the assets of the company stand vested with the IRP. In the present case, such vesting took place on December 4, 2023. 12. Coming to the order of recall, it is our view that this recall application was required to be filed by the IRP and not by the applicant herein. 13. In any case, since all the parties are already on board, and the petitioner company is the company that is in insolvency, we direct that the IRP shall be the person representing the company while the petitioner who had filed the writ petition (suspended director) and the added respondent (DS Chewing Products LLP) shall be treated as proforma respondents. Writ Petition 14. It appears that the UPSIDC has raised its claim on August 6, 2024. Counsel on behalf of UPSIDC submits that they were not aware of the proceedings before the NCLT and accordingly, they have proceeded in accordance with law. However, he fairly submits that if an IRP has been appointed and petition under Section 7 of IBC has been admitted by the NCLT, all claims that UPSIDC may have, shall have to be made before the IRP. 15. Accordingly, the claim of the UPSIDC that has been raised by way of the above notice is kept in abeyance with liberty granted to the UPSIDC to approach the IRP in accordance with law. 16. In light of the above, the prayer with regard to setting aside and quashing of notice dated August 6, 2024, has become infructuous at the present moment. WRIC No. 26964 of 2024 3 17. With regard to prayer (b), we direct the IRP to take steps in consultation with the respondent authorities to initiate the process of registration of the sale deeds of the customers, in accordance with law. 18. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. September 8, 2025 DKS WRIC No. 26964 of 2024 4 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad