Shubh Gautam vs Anjani Technoplast Limited
- Court
- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
- Case type
- IA
- Decided on
- 26-02-2026
<div> <b>NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, </b><br /> <b>PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI </b><br /> <b>Interlocutory Application No.1151 of 2026 in </b><br /> <b>Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.904 of 2022 </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>IN THE MATTER OF: </b><br /> Shubh Gautam …Appellant <br /> <br /> Versus <br /> Anjani Technoplast Ltd. …Respondent <br /> <br /> <b>Present: </b><br /> <b>For Appellant </b> <b>: Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate.</b> <br /> <b>For Respondents </b> <b>: Mr. </b> <b>Pankaj </b> <b>Pandey, </b> <b>Mr. </b> <b>Girish </b> <b>Tripathi, </b><br /> <b>Advocates. </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>J U D G M E N T</b> <b> </b><br /> <b>ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. </b><br /> <br /> I.A. No.1151 of 2026 has been filed by the Applicant/ Appellant – <br /> Shubh Gautam (hereinafter referred to as the “ <b>Lender</b> ”) praying for <br /> following reliefs: <br /> “a) Record and hold that a legally enforceable decretal amount <br /> exists in favour of the Respondent arising out of the final <br /> decree dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court <br /> of Delhi; <br /> b) Record and quantify the decretal amount payable by the <br /> Appellant at Rs. 12,51,18,074.49/- as on 28.02.2026, as <br /> reflected in Annexure-A-6, computed strictly in terms of the <br /> decree and after adjustment of all post-decree deposits; <br /> c) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal <br /> may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of <br /> the case and render justice.” <br /> 2. The above application has been filed by the Lender in pursuance of <br /> the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil <br /> Appeal No.(s) 8247 of 2022 in <b><i>Anjani Technoplast Ltd. vs. Shubh </i></b><br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 1 <i> </i><br /><br /> <b><i>Gautam. Anjani Technoplast Ltd.</i></b> (hereinafter referred to as the <br /> “ <b>Company</b> ”). The Company has filed the above Appeal in the Hon’ble <br /> Supreme Court assailing the order of this Tribunal dated 01.11.2022 <br /> passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 – Shubh Gautam <br /> vs. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., by which order this Tribunal has set aside <br /> the order of the NCLT dated 20.06.2022 rejecting Section 7 application <br /> filed by Shubh Gautam, Lender. <br /> 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent – Anjani <br /> Technoplast Ltd., Company has filed Annexures compilation. Both the <br /> parties have also filed short notes of submission in support of their <br /> respective claims. The order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 02.02.2026 <br /> passed in Civil Appeal No.8247 of 2022 is as follows: <br /> “1. There is a serious contest about the existence of debt. While it <br /> is contended by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel <br /> appearing for the appellant, that no amount is payable, learned <br /> Cansel for the respondent states that nothing of the decretal <br /> amount has been paid at all. <br /> 2. Pending disposal of this appeal, the National Company Law <br /> Appellate Tribunal [NCLAT] shall examine the issue of existence of <br /> debt and pass an order so as to enable this Court to consider if the <br /> dispute can be settled. The Tribunal may pass the order within four <br /> weeks from today. <br /> 3. The parties are at liberty to mention this appeal for listing <br /> immediately thereafter.” <br /> 4. In the above order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed that <br /> there is serious contest about the existence of debt between the parties. <br /> Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the above context has referred to <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 2 <i> </i><br /><br /> two earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above <br /> Appeal. Reference has been made to the order dated 18.10.2024 where it <br /> was stated on behalf of the Company that amount of Rs.3 crores has <br /> already been deposited in the High Court and the Company is ready and <br /> willing to deposit the balance decretal amount payable till date, in terms <br /> of the decree dated 11.01.2018. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court <br /> dated 18.10.2024 is as follows: <br /> “It is stated on behalf of the appellant, Anjani Technoplast <br /> Ltd., that 3 crores have already been deposited in the High Court <br /> and that the appellant is ready and willing to deposit the balance <br /> decretal amount payable till date, in terms of the decree dated <br /> 11.01.2018. The balance amount, along with the computation <br /> decreed by the High Court, will be deposited by the appellant before <br /> the High Court within a period of six weeks from today. <br /> A copy of the said computation along with proof of payment <br /> will be furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent, Shubh <br /> Gautam. <br /> Re-list in the week commencing 13.01.2025.” <br /> 5. On 11.02.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticing the calculation <br /> of amount on behalf of Lender passed following order: <br /> “Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has <br /> handed over a detailed calculation chart depicting the total amount <br /> payable and, according to them, the balance amount payable is <br /> presently more than ₹ 11 crores. <br /> Let the appellant examine the aforesaid calculation chart <br /> and report by filing an alternative chart, in case it disputes the <br /> figures given in the said chart. The alternative chart, if any, shall <br /> be filed within seven days from today with an advance copy to the <br /> other side. <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 3 <i> </i><br /><br /> Re-list in the week commencing 17.03.2025.” <br /> 6. Before we proceed to consider the application filed by Lender, we <br /> need to notice certain background facts and sequence of events with <br /> respect to dispute between the parties. <br /> 6.1 The Lender – Shubh Gautam is a money lender, who has on <br /> 24.02.2010 gave a loan of Rs.2.50 crores for a period of two months with <br /> interest @ 12.75% payable on half-yearly basis. The Loan Agreement also <br /> provided that in default of payment, the Lender shall be entitled and <br /> Borrower shall be liable to pay interest mentioned in the loan. On <br /> 31.03.2010 another loan of Rs.2 crores for a period of fifteen days was <br /> taken with interest @3% per month, payable on half-yearly basis. The <br /> Company had given cheques as security. <br /> 6.2 On dishonouring of cheques the Lender filed a complaint under <br /> Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 before the Court of <br /> Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Delhi. In the complaint, a <br /> Compromise Deed was entered between the parties on 31.08.2013, where <br /> Company agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,22,02,660/- within 12 <br /> months. The compromise also acknowledged that Company till <br /> 31.07.2014 has made payment of Rs.3,53,51,520/-. <br /> 6.3 Lender filed a Summary Suit CS (OS) 66/2016 under Order XXXVII <br /> of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for Decree of an amount of <br /> Rs.4,38,00,617/- with pendente lite and future interest @24% per <br /> annum. In the Summary Suit a Compromise Deed dated 23.12.2016 was <br /> entered in continuation of earlier compromise dated 31.08.2013, where, <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 4 <i> </i><br /><br /> Company agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,38,61,907/- as full and final <br /> settlement against all claims by means of two cheques. The cheques <br /> given were not honoured, learned single Judge Delhi High Court vide <br /> judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed a Decree for a sum of Rs. <br /> 4,38,00,617/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from 01.02.2016. <br /> The Decree order also directed for deduction of Rs.25 lakhs, which was <br /> paid to the Plaintiff on 06.01.2018 and a cost of Rs.5 lakhs was also <br /> imposed. The Company filed an Appeal – RFA (OS) 48/2018 before the <br /> Division Bench, which also came to be dismissed on 27.07.2018 with cost <br /> of Rs.25,000/-. <br /> 6.4 Lender filed a Section 7 petition being Company Petition No.(IB)-<br /> 766(ND/2021 before the NCLT, New Delhi Bench-IV alleging financial <br /> debt as owed to the Company, which is in default. The NCLT by order <br /> dated 20.06.2022 dismissed Section 7 petition. The Company had also <br /> filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22264/2021 challenging the <br /> Division Bench order of Delhi High Court dated 27.07.2018, which came <br /> to be dismissed on 22.10.2021. <br /> 6.5 With respect to Assessment Year 2012-13, a demand was raised on <br /> the Lender on account of TDS deposited by the Company of Rs.9,22,855/- <br /> towards the interest given to Lender. The Lender file an Appeal before the <br /> Commissioner of Income Tax objecting to demand. The Commissioner of <br /> Income Tax dismissed the Appeal filed by the Lender on 21.09.2020 <br /> assessing the interest income on the strength of TDS deposited by the <br /> Company. The Appellant filed an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 5 <i> </i><br /><br /> Tribunal (“ <b>ITAT</b> ”), where the Lender with respect to dues of Company, <br /> pleaded that Company having failed to repay the principal amount, there <br /> was no question of booking of interest income of Rs.92,28,545/-. Before <br /> the ITAT, it was also pleaded by the Lender that amount due on M/s <br /> Anjani Technoplast Ltd. is Rs.96,48,480/-. The ITAT partially allowed the <br /> Appeal, adding the income with respect to Rs.9,22,855/-, which was the <br /> TDS deposited by the Company. <br /> 6.6 The Company after coming to know about the Income Tax <br /> proceedings has filed an IA No.17634/2022 before the Delhi High Court in <br /> CS(OS) 66/2016 praying for various reliefs. It was also pleaded by the <br /> Applicant that that decree holder is not giving the details of <br /> computation/calculations, which are due and payable by judgment <br /> debtor. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax was also <br /> referred to in the application. Learned Single Judge also noticed the <br /> statement of judgment debtor that judgment debtor undertakes to pay full <br /> amounts, which are due and payable to decree holder. The Delhi High <br /> Court by order dated 31.10.2022 passed in IA No.17634/2022 directed <br /> the judgment debtor to pay all amounts due and payable to the decree <br /> holder in terms of decree dated 11.01.2018. The decree holder was also <br /> directed to file computation of calculation of amount. The judgment <br /> debtor undertook to deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and <br /> Rs.3 crores within 10 days. The judgment debtor deposited amount of <br /> Rs.3 crores. The Lender filed an Appeal against the order of the learned <br /> Single Judge passed in IA No.17634 of 2022 being Special Leave Petition <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 6 <i> </i><br /><br /> No.21131-21132, which petition filed by the Lender was dismissed by the <br /> Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.11.2022. <br /> 7. In the above background of facts and circumstances in the Civil <br /> Appeal No.8247 of 2022, both the parties have filed different calculations <br /> claiming the amount due. As noted in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme <br /> Court dated 11.02.2025, the claim of the Lender was that presently an <br /> amount of more than Rs.11 crores is due. The decree holder on the other <br /> hand after the order dated 18.10.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as <br /> noted above, filed a compliance affidavit and computation chart as <br /> Annexure-C, where the judgment debtor stated that balance decreed <br /> amount as per computation sheet was Rs.60,98,847/-, which has been <br /> deposited with Demand Draft dated 29.11.2024 before the Registrar <br /> General of the Delhi High Court. In the compliance affidavit it is <br /> submitted by the judgment debtor that amount of Rs.1,27,91,843/-, <br /> which was paid by the Company to the Lender was not appropriated. The <br /> judgment debtor claimed that computation as claimed by the decree <br /> holder is already challenged before the Delhi High Court in IA <br /> No.17634/2022 in which orders have been passed by the Delhi High <br /> Court. It was also pleaded that the Company was not aware of the <br /> income tax proceedings against the Lender with respect to interest income <br /> from the Company and the amount of TDS deducted and deposited by the <br /> Company was not even reflected by the Lender. It is pleaded that there <br /> was specific pleading by Lender before the ITAT that amount due against <br /> the Company was only Rs.96,48,480/-. On the other hand, the Lender in <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 7 <i> </i><br /><br /> this application has filed a statement of decreed amount as per the decree <br /> dated 11.01.2018 and as per the above chart till 28.02.2026 an amount <br /> of Rs.12,51,18,074/- is due <br /> 8. From the materials brough on record by both the parties, which <br /> were also placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been noticed <br /> above, the dispute between the parties, which has surfaced before the <br /> Hon’ble Supreme Court is about the respective computations by both the <br /> parties on the basis of decree of Delhi High Court dated 11.01.2018. <br /> Learned Counsel for the Lender submitted that decree dated 11.01.2018 <br /> passed by Delhi High Court in Summary Suit filed by the Lender have <br /> become final. The Appeal before the Division Bench have been dismissed <br /> and SLP has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the <br /> Company cannot be heard in disputing the amount against the decree, <br /> which has become final between the parties. <br /> 9. Learned Counsel for the Lender contended that the computation of <br /> chart, which has been filed by the decree holder has adjusted the amount <br /> of Rs.25,00,000/- as was directed by the decree dated 11.01.2018 and <br /> the amount of Rs.3 crores deposited on 02.11.2022; amount of <br /> Rs.60,98,847 on 17.02.2025. It is submitted that the Company is <br /> endeavouring to rely on the proceeding under the income tax, which has <br /> no relevance. The Company is also trying to get adjustment of certain <br /> amount, which according to Company has not been reflected by the <br /> Lender, which issues have become final after passing of the decree on <br /> 11.01.2018. It is submitted that application filed by Company before the <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 8 <i> </i><br /><br /> learned Single Judge being IA No.17634 of 2022 is not maintainable, nor <br /> the decree has been stayed or modified by the Delhi High Court. <br /> 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Company submitted that <br /> Company is not making any averments against the decree dated <br /> 11.01.2018. It is, however, submitted that Company after coming to <br /> know that there was suppression of facts and concealment by the Lender <br /> in Summary Suit in obtaining the Decree, an IA has been filed before the <br /> Delhi High Court being IA No.17634/2022, in which IA, the judgment <br /> debtor has undertaken to pay the entire amount due under the decree <br /> and hence, deposited the amount of Rs.3 crores immediately after order <br /> dated 31.10.2022 and balance amount of Rs.60 lakhs as per calculation <br /> of the Company. It is submitted in the proceedings before Income Tax <br /> Authorities, specially before ITAT, the Lender has pleaded before the ITAT <br /> that amount due on the Company was only Rs.96,48,480/-. When the <br /> Lender has taken a stand before the ITAT and mentioned the figure of <br /> amount due against the Company, it could not have different amount in <br /> the Summary Suit. When the amount of only Rs.96,48,480/- was due at <br /> the end of 31.03.2012, claiming of interest by Lender of amount of <br /> Rs.1.05 crores regularly for each year, which is reflected in the chart <br /> given by the Lender is incorrect. In the chart, which has been submitted <br /> by the Lender, every year an amount of Rs.1,05,12,148/- have been <br /> mentioned as interest, which interest according to the Lender is on same <br /> amount, i.e. Rs.4,38,00,617/- crores. Several amounts paid by the <br /> Company, have not been reflected and the whole basis and calculation by <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 9 <i> </i><br /><br /> the Lender being fraudulent and full of suppression, the Company had to <br /> file an application IA No.17634/2022, which has been entertained and is <br /> still pending. It is submitted that on account of suppression an <br /> application under Section 340 CrPC before the Delhi High Court, wherein <br /> notice has been issued. <br /> 11. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the <br /> parties and have perused the records. <br /> 12. With respect to rival claim of both the parties relying on respective <br /> computation chart regarding the amount due on the Company in favour <br /> of the Lender, learned Counsel for the Company has submitted at the very <br /> outset that submissions made by Respondent are not in any manner <br /> questioning the decree dated 11.01.2018 passed by Delhi High Court in <br /> Summary Suit. The submissions, which have been advanced by <br /> Respondent is to point out their own calculation of amounts paid by them <br /> and the action of Lender in not reflecting various payments made by the <br /> Company to the lender and taking contradictory stand before the Income <br /> Tax Authorities and before the Delhi High Court. We have noticed above <br /> that after the Decree dated 11.01.2018, which was affirmed by the <br /> Division Bench on 27.07.2018 as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court <br /> by dismissing the SLP on 22.10.2021, an application under Section 151 <br /> CPC has been filed by the Company before the Delhi High Court in <br /> Summary Suit proceedings, i.e. CS(OS)66/2016. The copy of the order of <br /> the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2022 has been placed on record by <br /> Company. It is useful to notice certain paragraphs of the order dated <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 10 <i> </i><br /><br /> 31.10.2022. Learned Single Judge in its order dated 31.10.2022 has <br /> noted the details of all litigations between the parties, including the <br /> Compromise Deeds. The averments made by the judgment debtor has <br /> been noticed by the learned Single Judge in Paragraphs-9 and 10, which <br /> are as follows: <br /> “9. It is submitted that applicant/judgment debtor is a running <br /> company, which is a fully solvent company with 95 serving full <br /> time employees. It is submitted that judgment debtor had booked <br /> total revenue of approximately Rs. 35 crores in the last financial <br /> year i.e. 2021-22 with profit of Rs. 8 crores. However, decree holder <br /> instead of filing an execution petition for purposes of recovering <br /> moneys which are due and payable to it, has initiated proceedings <br /> under Section 7 of IBC in a mischievous manner. <br /> 10. Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant/judgment <br /> debtor submits that judgment debtor undertakes to pay full <br /> amounts which are due and payable to decree holder. However, he <br /> submits that decree holder has not given any detailed calculations <br /> as to amounts which are due and payable to decree holder. <br /> Further, he submits that when tranche of Rs. 92,28,545/- was <br /> paid by judgment debtor to decree holder, the said amount was <br /> neither reflected in books of accounts by decree holder nor was <br /> accounted for in Income Tax Returns for said year. This is despite <br /> the fact that judgment debtor had not only deducted TDS for the <br /> said amount but had also deposited said amount with Income tax <br /> authorities. Thus, he submits that though an approximate amount <br /> of Rs. 4.12 crores already stands paid by judgment debtor to decree <br /> holder, however, decree holder has not given proper computation of <br /> amounts payable by judgment debtor. Thus, learned senior counsel <br /> submits that judgment debtor has not been able to honor its <br /> liability in absence of clear calculations given on behalf of decree <br /> holder.” <br /> 13. The learned Single Judge after noticing the submissions of the <br /> parties and decree passed in Summary Suit and order of the Division <br /> Bench, in Paragraph 18 to 21 observed following: <br /> “18. Considering the undertaking given by judgment debtor today <br /> before this Court that it shall pay all amounts due and payable to <br /> the decree holder in terms of decree dated 11.01.2018, direction is <br /> issued to decree holder to file computation of calculation of <br /> amounts which are still due and payable by judgment debtor in <br /> terms of decree dated 11.01.2018 after showing adjustments of all <br /> amounts which have already been paid by judgment debtor. <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 11 <i> </i><br /><br /> 19. Let affidavit be filed by decree holder within a period of two <br /> weeks from today. <br /> 20. In order to show his bonafide, learned senior counsel on <br /> instructions undertakes that judgment debtor shall deposit cost <br /> levied by this Court to tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with cost of Rs. <br /> 25,000/- and a further amount of Rs. 3 crores with Registrar <br /> General of this Court within a period of 10 days from today. The <br /> said amounts, deposited by judgment debtor shall be kept in an <br /> interest bearing account. <br /> 21. After affidavit is filed by decree holder in terms of order passed <br /> today, decree holder will be at liberty to move an application before <br /> this Court praying for release of aforesaid amounts so deposited by <br /> judgment debtor with the Registrar General of this Court.” <br /> 14. We have noted that after the judgment of learned Single Judge on <br /> 31.10.2022, an amount of Rs.3 crores was deposited immediately on <br /> 02.11.2022 and after order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated <br /> 18.10.2024, the judgment debtor has deposited an amount of <br /> Rs.60,98,847/- by Bank Draft dated 29.11.2024. <br /> 15. We need to first notice the objections raised by learned Counsel for <br /> the Lender with respect to orders of Income Tax Authorities, which have <br /> been relied by learned Counsel for the Company and were also filed before <br /> the Hon’ble Supreme Court along with compliance affidavit of the <br /> Company dated 28.11.2024. We may first examine as to whether <br /> proceedings of Income Tax Act has any relevance with regard to dispute of <br /> the amount between the parties. The order of Commissioner of Income <br /> Tax dated 21.09.2020 has been relied, in which proceedings a demand <br /> was raised against the Lender by adding interest income on the basis of <br /> TDS deposited by the Company of Rs.9,22,855/- on the interest income of <br /> the Lender. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax, it is clear from the <br /> order, that Lender pleaded that there is default in payment of principal <br /> amount and which amount was also doubtful of recovery. Hence, there <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 12 <i> </i><br /><br /> cannot be any interest that could be said to be accrued on the amount. <br /> The Appeal was however dismissed, against which order the Lender filed <br /> an Appeal before ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) with respect to <br /> Assessment Year 2012-13. The ITAT allowed the Appeal by its order <br /> dated 01.09.2022, which order is on the record. The ITAT has noted the <br /> case of the Lender. The Lender before the ITAT has placed the chart <br /> regarding balance amount due from Anjani Technoplast Ltd. It is useful <br /> to notice Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the judgment, which are as follows: <br /> “5. Whereas the case of the assessee is that M/s. Anjani <br /> Technoplast Ltd. has failed to repay even the principal <br /> amount and litigation is pending and there was no likelihood <br /> of receiving any payment of principal or interest amount <br /> from M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., therefore, there was no <br /> question of booking of interest income of Rs.92,28,545/-. <br /> That’s merely because M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., <br /> deposited TDS amounting to Rs.9,22,855/-, does not mean <br /> that the interest income of Rs.92,28,545/- has accrued to <br /> the assessee. It has been pleaded that in view of the <br /> aforesaid facts, only the real income of the assessee can be <br /> taxed and since the litigation is going on with M/s. Anjani <br /> Technoplast Ltd., therefore, the addition of Rs.92,28,545/-<br /> into the income of the assessee on accrual basis is not <br /> justified. <br /> It has been further pleaded that the company M/s. Sriram <br /> Compounds Pvt. Ltd., in which the assessee is a Director <br /> was having some credit balance of M/s. Anjani Technoplast <br /> Ltd., in respect of purchases made, in its books of accounts. <br /> It was mutually agreed that the assessee's credits for M/s. <br /> Anjani Technoplast Ltd. will be adjusted against the credit <br /> balances of M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd. in the books of <br /> M/s. Sriram Compounds Pvt. Ltd. The assessee in this <br /> respect has placed on record the following chart:- <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Sl.<br>No.</th><th>Date of<br>events</th><th>Particulars</th><th>Amount (in<br>Rs.)</th><th>Amount (in<br>Rs.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>24-02-<br>2010</td><td>Loan given by the<br>appellant to Anjani<br>Technoplast</td><td>2,50,00,000</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>31-03-<br>2010</td><td>Loan given by the<br>appellant to Anjani<br>Technoplast</td><td>2,00,00,000</td><td>4,50,00,000</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>29-04-<br>2010</td><td>Less: receipt of the<br>loan money from<br>Anjani Technoplast</td><td>(60,257)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 13 <i> </i><br /><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>vide cheques<br>no.819834</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4</td><td>29-04-<br>2010</td><td>Less: receipt of the<br>loan money from<br>Anjani Technoplast<br>vide cheques<br>no.819833</td><td>(4,63,716)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>30-04-<br>2010</td><td>Less: receipt of the<br>loan money from<br>Anjani Technoplast<br>vide cheques<br>no.819838</td><td>(3,00,000)</td><td>(8,23,793)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>31-03-<br>2011</td><td>Credit balance of<br>Anjani Technoplast<br>transferred to the<br>appellant by<br>Sriram Compounds</td><td>1,19,67,870</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>31-03-<br>2012</td><td>Credit balance of<br>Anjani Technoplast<br>transferred to the<br>appellant by<br>Sriram Compounds</td><td>3,22,08,157</td><td>4,41,76,027</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>20-11-<br>2010<br>To<br>31-03-<br>2012</td><td>Adjustment of<br>Purchase of raw<br>materials from<br>Anjani Technoplast<br>by Sriram<br>Compounds Pvt.<br>Ltd.</td><td></td><td>(3,45,27,547)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Balance amount<br>due from Anjani<br>Technoplast by the<br>appellant</td><td></td><td>96,48,480</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid chart, it has been pleaded <br /> that even otherwise, only the amount which was outstanding <br /> against M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd. was Rs.96,48,480/-. In a <br /> nutshell, the pleading of the assessee is that only amount which <br /> the assessee has received on account of interest from M/s Anjani <br /> Technoplast Ltd. during the assessment year under consideration <br /> is the amount deposited as TDS of Rs.9,22,855/-. That, neither <br /> any other amount has been received by the assessee nor any other <br /> income has accrued for which any addition could have been made <br /> by the Assessing Officer.” <br /> 16. There is categorical case of the Lender before the ITAT that amount <br /> due against the Company is Rs.96,48,480/- No explanation has come on <br /> behalf of the Lender to explain the case setup by the Lender before the <br /> ITAT except that such orders are not relevant in these proceedings. When <br /> the Company is claiming that various payments made by Company are <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 14 <i> </i><br /><br /> not reflected and specific amount of Rs.1,27,91,843/- is pleaded in the <br /> compliance affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court after order <br /> dated 18.10.2024. It is an admitted fact between the parties that an <br /> amount of Rs.3.53 crores was already received by the Lender, which is <br /> reflected in the Settlement dated 31.08.2013. In the computation chart, <br /> which has been filed by the Lender, claiming an amount of more than <br /> Rs.11 crores as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and more than <br /> Rs.12 crores as claimed before us, the chart indicate that every year same <br /> amount of Rs.1,05,12,148/- have been added with effect from <br /> 01.02.2017. As noted above the judgment debtor is also not complaining <br /> against the decree dated 11.01.2018, but submits that the amounts <br /> claimed in the Summary Suit do not reflect the payments already made. <br /> We have noticed that after the decree passed in the suit, learned Single <br /> Judge has entertained the application filed by the Company, where before <br /> the High Court the Company has undertaken to pay the entire amount <br /> and has already deposit Rs.3 crores. Learned Single Judge has not <br /> passed any final order in the IA, which was filed by the Company in the <br /> Summary Suit. The submissions, which have been made by the learned <br /> Counsel for the Company before us regarding the quantum of amount as <br /> claimed by the Company, cannot be held to be without substance. <br /> 17. From the materials brought on record by both the parties and the <br /> respective submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, we arrive on <br /> following <b>conclusions</b> : <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 15 <i> </i><br /><br /> 1. In the summary suit filed by Lender in Delhi High Court, various <br /> payments made by Company as detailed in Chart C (filed by <br /> Company in compliance affidavit in pursuance of order of <br /> Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.10.2024) were not taken into <br /> Account. <br /> 2. The Lender in proceedings initiated by Income Tax Authorities <br /> has been held not reflecting the interest income for Assessment <br /> Year 2012-13 with regard to which TDS was deducted by the <br /> Company and deposited in the Form 26AS. <br /> 3. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.555/KOL/2020, filed <br /> by Lender, in its judgment dated 01.09.2022 has extracted the <br /> calculations given by Lender regarding outstanding amount <br /> against the Company as on 31.03.2012, which was only <br /> Rs.96,48,480/-, the amount claimed by Lender in Summary Suit <br /> No.66/2016 of Rs.4,38,00,617/- is contrary to own case set by <br /> Lender before ITAT. <br /> 4. The proceedings before the Income Tax Authorities which relate <br /> to Assessment Year 2012-13 i.e. after date of loan and decided <br /> on 01.09.2022, after judgment dated 11.01.2018 of Delhi High <br /> Court, are relevant and can be looked into. <br /> 5. The IA No.17634/22 has been filed by Company in CS(OS) 66 of <br /> 2016 under Section 151, in which proceeding Delhi High Court <br /> has taken note of Income Tax Proceedings. The entertaining of <br /> Section 151 C.P.C. Application by Delhi High Court with respect <br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 16 <i> </i><br /><br /> to decree of Summary Suit dates 11.01.2018, <i>prima facie</i> caste a <br /> doubt on the amount claimed in Summary Suit which may be <br /> finally determined by Delhi High Court in the said proceedings. <br /> 6. The calculation chart given by Lender of outstanding amount of <br /> Rs.12,51,18,074 as on 28.02.2026 is calculations as per decree <br /> dated 11.01.2018, to accept the same is to disregard the above <br /> observations (1 to 5). <br /> Both the parties may place this order before Hon’ble Supreme Court <br /> as per order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No.8247 of 2022. <br /> <br /> <b>[Justice Ashok Bhushan] </b><br /> <b>Chairperson </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>[Mr. Indevar Pandey] </b><br /> <b>Member (Technical) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>NEW DELHI </b><br /> <b>th</b><br /> <b>26</b> <b> February, 2026 </b> <b> </b><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i> </i><br /> <i>Ashwani</i> <i> </i><br /> <i>I.A. No.1151 of 2026 in </i><br /> <i>Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 </i> <i> </i> 17 <i> </i></div>