$~130 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010079242026 + RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2026, CM APPL. 14178/2026 & CM APPL. 14179/2026 ROSELAND BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta & Mr. Palash Singhai, Advcoates. versus VIHAAN 43 REALTY PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Chaman Parwani, Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Mr. Rajat Sinha and Ms. Shubhi Agarwal, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 30.07.2026 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 05.01.2026, passed by learned Single Judge whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been rejected by learned Single Judge under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are barred by Section 60(5), 63 and 231 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:19:58 and Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant made various submissions at the bar regarding the correctness, legality and otherwise of the order passed by learned Single Judge. 3. We are of the prima-facie opinion that without looking at the contextual facts, the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. 4. However, in the facts of the present case, the concern expressed by Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant calls for consideration that the NCLT may not consider petitioner’s contention regarding the assignment deed dated 06.03.2020 to be fraudulent, as the respondent-VIHAAN 43 REALTY PVT LTD. has objected to adjudicability or maintainability of the application, which the present appellant had filed before the NCLT. being (IA No.1012/2025) 5. On Court’s observation that the appellant cannot be rendered remediless – “the appellant’s application to declare the assignment deed to be fraudulent is being opposed, by the respondent-defendant as not maintainable and on the other hand its suit has been rejected as not maintainable”, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, with her usual fairness submitted that though the respondent has filed a reply to the above-referred application and opposed the vary maintainability of the application, but it will not resist/oppose the same, in case the NCLT considers and adjudicates the same in accordance with law, subject of course to its right to contend that the subject agreement is not fraudulent. 6. With that fair stand taken by the respondent, we direct NCLT to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:19:58 decide the above-referred application (being IA No. 1012/2025) in accordance with law, before it proposes to consider the case for admission. 7. Needless to state that we have not made any observation on merit of the case or on the nature of the agreement. The NCLT shall be free to pass appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law. 8. We wish to make it clear that we have not formed our definite opinion about the maintainability of the suit in the present factual matrix, since final arguments have not been heard in this regard and our order is based on peculiar facts of the case. 9. The appeal stands disposed of, with the consent of parties. All pending Applications stand disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 30, 2026/nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:19:58