Nishit Badola vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 04.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on:20.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 174/2024, CM APPL. 22897/2024, CM APPL. 18080/2025,
CM APPL. 18081/2025, CM APPL. 19004/2025, CM APPL.
19005/2025, CM APPL. 50797/2025, CM APPL. 59752/2025, CM
APPL. 7585/2026, CM APPL. 7700/2026, CM APPL. 7759/2026
CMAPPL.7760/2026 & CMAPPL.7792/2026
NISHIT BADOLA ………Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta & Mr. Jai
Sikand, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE
AFFAIRS & ANR. ………Respondents
Through: Mr.Piyush Beriwal Adv for R1&2
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Naved Ahmed,
Ms. Anam Siddiqui and Mr. Akash Raja
Sahib, Advs.
Mr. Siddharth Nath Adv. Mr. Anunay
Chowdhary, Mr. Asjad Hussain Advs. for
R-10.
Ms Kanika Singhal, Ms. Vijeta Singh, Mr.
Shivam Singh Rana, Advs.
Mr. Harshit Sethi & Ms. Mansi Tripathi,
Advs.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 1 of 40
Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Raj
Kamal, Mr. Harneet Singh, Mr. Suvan Jain,
Mr. Manish Sharma, Advs. for R-9.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rudreshwar Singh, Mr. Ravi Shankar
Nanda, Ms. Madhurima Sarangi, Ms.
Amartya Bhushan, Mr. Yojit Mehra, Mr.
Varun Kumar and Ms. Karni Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
J U D G M E N T
W.P.(C) 174/2024 & CM APPL. No 7700/2026
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of
the Constitution of India (“ the Constitution ”) seeking the following
prayers:-
“(i) Direct Respondent No. 1 to correct the information on
the Master Data Form of Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd and
remove the name of Mr Rajiv Baisoya reflecting as a
director;
(ii) Direct Respondent No. 1 to remove the name of all such
additional directors, including that of Mr. Girish Chander
Joshi, whose tenure has been expired and their name is still
reflecting on the portal of Respondent No. 1;
(iii) Direct Respondent No. 2 to investigate into the serious
fraud that has been committed;
(iv) Any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem
appropriate in the facts of the instant case.”
2. The petitioner i.e., Nishit Badola, is a financial creditor/ claimant of
Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd. (“ Three C ”), a company incorporated on
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 2 of 40
31.12.2010, under the Companies Act, 1956.
FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITIONER
3. The relevant facts, as borne out from the pleadings and the documents
placed on record, are set out hereunder:-
a) Straight Edge Contracts Pvt. Ltd. (“ Straight Edge ”) filed a petition
under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(“ IBC ”) against Three C, wherein National Company Law
Tribunal (“ NCLT ”) vide order dated 20.07.2020 allowed the said
petition and later vide a detailed order dated 16.10.2020 declared
commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
(“ CIRP ”) against Three C. Consequently, an Interim Resolution
Professional (“ IRP ”) namely Mr. Amarpal, was appointed and
moratorium was imposed on Three C.
b) During the CIRP, disputes arose between Three C‟s IRP/RP and
Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., on whose land project „Greenopolis‟
units were to be constructed. Since the dispute travelled to the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)
No. 7712/2021, vide order dated 01.07.2021 directed that NCLT
would decide all-issues with respect to the Greenopolis project.
Accordingly, NCLT vide order dated 29.03.2022 held that Three C
and Straight Edge schemed the insolvency proceedings and Mr.
Rajiv Baisoya and Mr. Girish Chander Joshi representing Three C
were mere pantry boys/ office boys and that Three C siphoned
money to its sister concerns. Later, appeals were filed against the
said order and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
(“ NCLAT ”) vide order dated 28.08.2023 noted the collusion in
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 3 of 40
insolvency proceedings and recalled the admissions orders dated
20.07.2020 and 16.10.2020 of the CIRP of Three C.
c) Mr. Girish Chander Joshi, sent a letter dated 02.09.2023 to the
Court appointed IRP i.e., Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik (respondent
No. 3) seeking possession of documents and premises acquired by
IRP. Later, Greenopolis Welfare Confederation (“ GWC ”) i.e.,
respondent No. 5, a homebuyers association, also filed applications
in pending writ petitions, alleging investigation into siphoning off
of funds by Three C.
d) As per the company master data, on Ministry of Corporate Affairs‟
site, as on 20.09.2023 Three C‟s status was “Under Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process” and it had no director, as Mr.
Anand Ram‟s tenure ended on 16.08.2019 and Mr. Girish Chander
Joshi, appointed as additional director could have been a director
only till 30.09.2019. However, Mr. Girish Chander Joshi,
addressed an email dated 26.09.2023 in the capacity of a Director,
to Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, IRP of Three C, seeking filing of
Form-INC 28 for withdrawal, as CIRP of Three C had been set
aside.
e) Meantime, appeals were filed challenging the order dated
28.08.2023, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated
13.10.2023 directed to maintain status quo including assets.
f) As per the company master data, on the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs‟ site, as on 28.11.2023, Three C had no director and the
status remained same as before and only the name of Mr. Anand
Ram was showing.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 4 of 40
g) Later, a Civil Appeal No. 7704/2023 was filed in the name of
Three C, accompanied by an affidavit of Mr. Rajiv Baisoya and the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 directed Mr.
Rajiv Baisoya to produce authorization for filling the appeals, since
the IRP has not authorised the same.
h) In the meanwhile, status on the company master data of Three C
changed and reflected Mr. Rajeev Baisoya as an additional director
of Three C on 14.09.2023, as on 02.01.2024.
i) Hence, the present petition.
4. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court passed an order
dated 22.10.2024 in CM APPL. No. 826/2024, wherein it was directed
as under: -
“20. Secondly, this Court is the of the considered view that
in compliance with the letter and spirit of the directions
passed by the Supreme Court, the status quo has to be
maintained with regard to the assets of the corporate debtor
and appropriate direction can be passed so as to safeguard
the interest of the stakeholders including the investors/home
buyers and it goes without saying that the latter parties are
victims of the entire nefarious activities on the part of the
previous management of the corporate debtor.
21. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1/Ministry of Corporate
Affairs is directed to ensure that the company status of M/s
Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. should be disclosed/notified as
'under CIRP' on its website within two weeks from today
failing which the Registrar of Companies shall appear in
person on the next date of hearing at 2.15 pm through VC.
xxxxxxxx
25. It is urged by Mr. Kohli, learned senior counsel for the
IRP that he has come to know of instances where the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 5 of 40
properties belonging to the corporate debtor are being sold
or pilfered away which is detailed in the updated status
report placed in a sealed envelope on the record. It is urged
that the IRP is not doing anything inconsistent with the
directions of the Supreme Court.
26. He has suggested that the IRP may be allowed to take
the following steps:-
"1. Increasing the security guards at the identified assets,
and dispossessing the trespassers who have entered
possession after the IRP had taken possession of assets
which have been identified by the IRP in Status Report-2.
The details of such assets are once again reproduced as
under:
i. Hotel Plot No. A-3a, Nehru Place, New Delhi
admeasuring 3546 sq. mtrs. situated at Nehru Place, New
Delhi- Chaspa Notice by IRP affixed on 16.04.2023;
ii. Units in the Project Ace Palms Floors, Sector-89,
Gurgaon- Chaspa Notice by IRP affixed on 17.04.2023.
Necessary steps are also to be taken urgently to take
appropriate action against the concerned persons as it is
learnt that the defaulting parties are executing and
nd
registering Sale Deeds of flats/units in the 2 asset
mentioned above i.e. Project Ace Palms Floors, Sector-
89, Gurgaon, so as to create third-party rights and defeat
the Court proceedings.
Further, liquidating the said assets to generate cash flows
to realize the claims of the genuine financial claimants of
the Corporate Debtor is also an essential step in this
direction.
2. Deploying security guards on the assets which have
been subsequently identified by the IRP which have been
mentioned in the Status Report-4 [filed in sealed cover
before this Hon'ble Court), as such assets have been
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 6 of 40
created from the monies of the claimants whose claims
have been accepted in the Status Report-1 prepared by
the IRP.
Further, these assets will be liquidated to generate cash
flows to realize the claim of the genuine financial
claimants of the Corporate Debtor.
3. Mutation of all the identified laundered assets in the
name of Three C. Shelters Pvt. Ltd. as such assets have
been created by the siphoned off monies from Three C
Shelters Pvt Ltd.
4. Inviting Expression of Interest ["EOI"] with respect to
the assets which have been identified by the IRP, for
better valuation so that the claims of the genuine
financial claimants are realized.
5. Publicizing the laundering of assets to spread
awareness among the public at large that such assets
have been created from the siphoned off monies of Three
C. Shelters Pvt Ltd. Any transaction with respect to such
assets would entitle the IRP to take necessary action
against the concerned persons.
6. Necessary steps to identify more assets, in addition to
those which have already been identified in the Four
Status Reports prepared by the IRP.
Further taking steps to initiate action against the
concerned persons who are indulged in diversion of
assets and have entered upon sale deeds with respect to
the laundered assets post 23.01.2019 [when these assets
were dedicated for Greenopolis by Three C before Ld.
HRERA] and 26.05.2023 [wherein the Ld. NCLT directed
verification of all claims and to prepare Status Reports].
7. Taking over the books of accounts of Three C Shelters
Pvt. Ltd which have been withheld from the IRP by the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 7 of 40
erstwhile management and the erstwhile suspended RP as
also stated in the Status Report-2.
8. Getting a forensic audit by an independent private
agency for each entity within the Three C group. Only
through a thorough and impartial audit can the full scope
of the fraudulent activities be exposed, ensuring
accountability and revealing the true extent of the
misappropriated monies hidden within the group's
operations.
9. Filing a claim in the CIRP of Three C Universal
Developers Pvt Ltd. as hundreds of crores has been
siphoned off from Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd to Three C
Universal Developers Pvt Ltd.
10. Identifying all the debit transactions that have been
done from the bank accounts of Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd
in order to trace the siphoning of funds. Further tracing
the concealed bank accounts which were operated in
order to siphon off monies from Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd.
11. Filing of an intervention application before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 7762 of 2023, titled
as "Gyan Chand Mishra v. Three C Universal Developers
Pvt Ltd & Ors." placing on record the large-scale
siphoning off funds from Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd to
Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd. and the
illegalities committed by Three C Group.
12. Conducting a meeting of the financial claimants /
creditors of the Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd., as identified in
the Status Report."
27. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in
order to safeguard the assets of the corporate debtor, for
now, the IRP is allowed to take measures which are
indicative above vide serial no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12. In the
consideration of this Court, such measures are necessary so
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 8 of 40
as to safeguard the assets of the company and also the
interest of the stakeholders.”
5. The said order dated 22.10.2024 was challenged before the Hon‟ble
Division Bench by Lavender Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (“ Lavender ”) i.e.,
respondent No. 9, Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (“ Bright Buildtech ”) i.e.,
respondent No. 8, Greenopolis Welfare Association (“ GWA ”) i.e.,
respondent No. 7 and Delhi Brass and Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. and
others i.e., respondent No. 10. The Hon‟ble Division Bench vide order
dated 11.11.2024 directed parties to not take any steps in pursuance of
the order dated 22.10.2024 qua the subject properties. Later, vide
order dated 17.03.2025, disposing of the LPAs, the Hon‟ble Division
Bench directed the parties to approach Single Judge for recall of the
order dated 22.10.2024 and directed to maintain status quo including
assets, till the Single Judge disposes of the applications.
6. Pursuant to the said order, the following applications for recall of the
order dated 22.10.2024 were filed: -
a) CM APPL. No. 18080/2025 by Bright Buildtech.
b) CM APPL. No. 19005/2025 by Lavender.
c) CM APPL. No. 19004/2025 by Delhi Brass & Metal Works Pvt.
Ltd. and others.
7. The order dated 28.08.2023 was challenged and the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 stayed the operation of the said
order and direct that the CIRP of Three C shall proceed.
8. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application i.e., CM APPL.
No 7700/2026 in the present writ petition seeking disposal of the writ
petition as the reliefs and concerns forming subject matter of the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 9 of 40
petition stood addressed in view of subsequent developments and
undertaking furnished by the IRP of Three C before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 20.11.2025.
CM APPL. No. 18080/2025, CM APPL. No. 19004/2025 & CM
APPL. No 19005/2025
9. These are applications filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking
recall/setting aside of the order dated 22.10.2024 (“ impugned order”)
passed in CM APPL. No. 826/2024 in the main writ petition.
10. The application being CM APPL. No. 18080/2025 preferred by Bright
Buildtech, seeks recall of the impugned order as it affects its property
being the units in the housing project namely Ace Palm Floors (“ Ace
Palm Project ”) developed on the project land situated at revenue
estate of village Hayatpur, Sector 89-90, Gurugram, Haryana. The
application being CM APPL. No. 19005/2025 has been filed by
Lavender, seeking recall of the impugned order as it affects its
property being Hotel Plot bearing No. A-3a, Phase II, Distt. Central,
Nehru Place, New Delhi (“ Nehru Place Property ”). The applicants in
CM APPL. No. 19004/2025 are respondent No. 10.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT IN CM
APPL. NO. 18080/2025
11. The applicant/Bright Buildtech seeks recall of the impugned order on
the following grounds:-
a) Impugned order has no nexus with the prayers sought in the main
petition.
b) Impugned order was passed without impleading Bright Buildtech
and affects its immoveable properties and many third party
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 10 of 40
homebuyers in Ace Palm Project.
c) Impugned order is a based on IRP Status Report dated 09.08.2023
submitted before Adjudicating Authority in relation to CIRP of
Three C, which is pending consideration and is only IRP‟s opinion
and IRP lacks adjudicative powers, reliance is placed upon Swiss
Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17.
d) Under IBC, IRP needs to approach competent court/ forum to
determine claims over third party‟s properties. The Adjudicating
Authority lacks jurisdiction to liquidate third party‟s assets that are
not of the Corporate Debtor, reliance is placed on Embassy
Property Development Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka and
Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 308.
e) No competent court/forum has determined that transactions
involving the applicant amounts to siphoning of assets from Three
C.
f) Ace Group is not related to the Three C Group, except some past
transactions. Bright Buildtech has been acquired by the Ace Group
and no one from Ace Group has been a director/ shareholder in any
Three C Group companies.
g) Allegation that hundreds of crores worth companies were
transferred by Three C at only Rs. 1 lakh to Ace Group are false.
h) Order dated 02.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1567/2024, wherein
relying upon the same IRP Report, the Court directed the Ministry
of Corporate Affairs to investigate into the affairs of Three C.
However, subsequently, this Court returned a finding that the
parties had failed to establish any direct connection or link of the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 11 of 40
applicant to the ex-promoters and directors of Three C Shelters.
i) Proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
(“ PMLA ”) 2002 and the action taken by the Enforcement
Directorate (“ ED ”) against Three C are independent proceedings
and ED has neither attached any applicant‟s assets in the
Provisional Attachment Orders (“ PAO ”) dated 28.03.2025 or
08.07.2025 nor named the applicant as an accused.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT IN CM
APPL. No. 19005/2025
12. The applicant/ Lavender seeks recall of the impugned order on the
following grounds:-
a) The Nehru Place Property is owned by Lavender vide Conveyance
Deed dated 19.09.2011 and has no relation to „Greenopolis‟
residential project for which Development Agreement dated
02.11.2011 was executed.
b) Based on the said Conveyance Deed, the title of Nehru Place
Property was held in favour of Lavender by Haryana Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (“ HRERA ”) vide order dated 25.03.2022
passed in E/659/2020/255/2018/2019 and Haryana Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal‟s (“ HREAT ”) order dated 03.05.2023 passed in
Appeal No. 422/2022, which has not been challenged and attained
finality.
c) The issue of possession of Nehru Place Property is sub-judice in
following proceedings:-
(i) CIRP proceedings of Three C before NCLT in Application
No. 3688/2023 in CP (IB) No. 2721/2019, urged by GWC;
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 12 of 40
(ii) Against non-grant of relief by NCLT, GWC preferred
applications bearing CRL. M.A. No. 24369/2023 in W.P.
(Crl.) 1952/2022 and CRL. M.A. No. 24367/2023 in W.P.
(Crl.) 1004/2021;
(iii) GWC filed a Civil Appeal No. 6792/2023 before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court assailing order dated 28.08.2023 setting
aside the CIRP of Three C and brought the same issue before
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide I.A. No. 248115/2023.
d) The impugned order adversely affects peaceful and vacant
possession of Nehru Place Property held by Lavender and allows it
liquidation without issuing notice to Lavender, which is done to
generate funds for „Greenopolis‟ project. The IRP of Three C has
baselessly linked the property with Greenopolis project.
e) The IRP of Three C claim on Nehru Place property is based on its
own Status Report No. 2 dated 08.08.2023, which is void of any
recognition, verification or ratification by the NCLT.
f) The said Status Report is in contravention of the order dated
25.03.2022 of HRERA and order dated 03.05.2023 of HREAT.
g) At the time of passing of the impugned order, the IRP of Three C
was functus officio in light of the setting aside the CIRP of Three C
vide order dated 28.08.2023 of NCLAT in C.A. (AT) (INS) No.
444/2022, which was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.10.2023
directed all the parties to maintain status quo including assets.
h) Under Section 18(f)(vi) of the IBC, an IRP could take possession
of asset owned by Corporate Debtor, when the ownership is
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 13 of 40
determined in Corporate Debtor‟s favour by the competent
Authority. However, in the present matter, the Nehru Place
Property‟s ownership is determined in favour of Lavender and not
Three C. Reliance is placed on Victory Iron Works Limited v.
Jitendra Lohia and Anr., (2023) 7 SCC 227 ; State of
Maharashtra v. Anil Kohil, 2021 (2) Mh.L.J ; Union of India v.
Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and
Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 748 ; Embassy Property Developments Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 308 and BRS
Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.,
(2025) 1 SCC 456 .
i) A monitoring committee has been appointed by the NCLT to
overlook IRP‟s conduct vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed in CP
(IB) 2721/ND/2019 and the said committee in its Report dated
08.02.2025 has found IRP of Three C biased and unfit to continue
as a resolution professional.
j) The Affidavit dated 23.01.2019 by Three C‟s representative before
HRERA wrongly showed Nehru Place Property for infusion of
funds for completion of Greenopolis Project. After considering the
said Affidavit, the HRERA and HREAT vide order dated
25.03.2022 and 03.05.2023, respectively, held that Lavender is the
owner of Nehru Place Property, thereby, rendering the said
Affidavit infructuous.
k) Since 2015 there exists prior charge over the Nehru Place Property
by creation of an equitable mortgage. The same is also recognized
by HRERA, Gurugram in order dated 14.12.2021 passed in
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 14 of 40
E/659/2020/225/2018/2019.
l) The impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity
to Lavender of being heard and is in violation of principle of
natural justice. Reliance is placed on National Textile Workers'
Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan, (1983) 1 SCC 228 and Veena
Gupta & Anr. v. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 1865-1866/2022 .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS IN CM
APPL. NO. 19004/2025
13. The present application is filled on behalf of the following
companies:- (i) Delhi Brass and Metal Works Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Yugal Chit
Fund and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) Positive Securities Pvt.
Ltd.; (iv) Span India Pvt. Ltd.; (v) Span Holdings Pvt. Ltd.; and (vi)
Citland Commercial Credit Pvt. Ltd.. and they also seek recall of the
impugned order on the following grounds:-
a) The applicants are the security owners, with prior beneficial
interest over the Nehru Place Property, created before CIRP
commenced and they acquired the Nehru Place Property before
Greenopolis Project even commenced.
b) The IRP‟s case in Status Report No. 2 regarding allegation of
siphoning funds from Corporate Debtor to Lavender in 2015
cannot be about the acquisition of a property in 2011. Even,
otherwise the allegations are of siphoning off of Rs. 2.87 crores,
whereas the property was acquired for Rs. 81 crores.
c) HRERA being the appropriate judicial authority, has already
affirmed applicants‟ prior beneficial interest over the Nehru Place
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 15 of 40
Property.
d) The impugned order defeats the ongoing proceedings before
NCLT, Delhi and is beyond the scope of the main writ petition.
Relief sought in the main writ petition was limited to change of
status of the Corporate Debtor‟s and its directors‟ status on
Ministry of Corporate Affairs‟ website. However, just on IRP‟s
suggestions, he was granted power to take control of assets
involved in insolvency proceedings pending before NCLT, Delhi,
while the applicants were not even parties to the petition.
e) The impugned order is in violation of audi alteram partem , as the
applicants were not given any opportunity of being heard.
f) The impugned order directs disposal of the Nehru Place Property,
which does not belong to Three C and is beyond the scope of
alleged CIRP under Section 18 of the IBC.
g) Under Section 18(f) of IBC, IRP can take control of Corporate
Debtor‟s assets over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership.
However, the property is ex facie not under Corporate Debtor‟s
control/custody and allegations that the property was acquired
through homebuyers fund is false. Reliance is placed on Embassy
Property Developments Private Limited v. State of Karnataka,
(2020) 13 SCC 308 .
h) The Nehru Place Property was allotted to Lavender vide Allotment
Letter dated 09.12.2010 and a Conveyance Deed dated 19.09.2011
was executed. Hence, Lavender acquired the Property in 2011, and
it could not have been acquired by homebuyer funds of the
Greenopolis project, which began thereafter.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 16 of 40
i) The applicants extended a loan to Lavender in August 2015 and a
mortgage over the Nehru Place Property was created in favour of
the Applicant. Vide Agreement to Sell dated 24.08.2015, Lavender
agreed to convey the Nehru Place Property to the applicants, if the
loan with the agreed interest is not repaid.
j) HRERA vide order dated 03.10.2019 attached the Nehru Place
Property and aggrieved by the same the applicants and Lavender
approached the HRERA and vide order dated 14.12.2021, taking
cognizance of applicants‟ mortgage rights over the property, it was
directed that their amount be realised first. This order was never
challenged and has attained finality.
k) The petitioner in the main petition claims that the Nehru Place
Property was acquired through siphoned funds from the Corporate
Debtor, based on IRP‟s Status Report dated 08.08.2023, which
relied on the Affidavit but never adverted to the proceedings before
HRERA.
l) While proceedings were pending before HRERA, CIRP was
invoked against Corporate Debtor by NCLT, Delhi and Mr.
Pradeep Kaushik was appointed as IRP. He affixed an attachment
notice dated 16.04.2023 contending that the Nehru Place Property
belonged to Corporate Debtor and submitted a Status Report dated
08.08.2023 to NCLT, Delhi alleging that an amount of Rs.
2,87,48,867/- was transferred from Corporate Debtor to Lavender
and also took note of the Affidavit dated 23.01.2019. The said
action of attachment is in teeth of orders dated 25.05.2022 and
03.05.2023 of HRERA and HREAT, respectively. Reliance is
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 17 of 40
placed on Rajender Singh v. Ramdhar Singh and Ors., (2001) 6
SCC 213 .
m) Vide order dated 19.11.2024, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court stayed
the order dated 28.08.2023 of the NCLAT and revived the CIRP
qua the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the appropriate forum being
NCLT, Delhi is already seized of the matter.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
14. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the impugned
order was passed in furtherance of prayers of the main writ petition
and hence, this Court should entertain the continuation of the
impugned order and makes the following submissions.
Scope Of Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India
15. It is submitted that Three C has committed large scale fraud hurting
innumerable homebuyers, including the petitioner, and in such a
scenario this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to pass apposite remedial directions. The same cannot be
denied on mere technical grounds, especially when it is a matter of
public interest and a systemic fraud. The impugned order dated
22.10.2024, secures the interests of affected stakeholders and is
intrinsically connected with the main petition‟s subject matter. If the
said order is recalled/ vacated, the same would risk irreparable
prejudice and depletion of assets that are supposed to be preserved for
restitution. If the order is modified/ vacated the hundreds of affected
homebuyers‟ claims would be prejudiced. The reliefs sought in the
main petition are broad enough to embrace necessary directions to
safeguard defrauded homebuyers‟ interest.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 18 of 40
16. In furtherance of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the
following judgments:-
a) Nur Islam & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 3051.
b) M/s Shiv Shankar Dal Mills & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
(1980) 2 SCC 437.
c) Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna
Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC
691.
d) Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 100.
e) Pramod v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (4) MhLJ.
Large Scale Fraud Committed By Three C
17. It is submitted that Three C is part of Three C Group managed by Mr.
Nirmal Singh, Mr. Surpreet Singh Suri, and Mr. Vidur Bhardwaj.
Three C has defrauded homebuyers by advertising deceptive image of
its financial stability and operational capability to take money and
then abandoning the project and siphoning off monies to related
entities and thereafter, commence insolvency proceedings against
itself to save itself using moratorium and consequently, dodge its
liabilities. Such methods of Three C group were duly recognized by
NCLT Principal Bench vide order dated 30.04.2024 in CP IB No.
1248/2018. The impugned order dated 22.10.2024 was passed to
safeguard stakeholders‟ interest of Three C and the promoters‟
fraudulent acts are already under judicial scrutiny before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in relation to another group entity, namely M/s
Hacienda Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 19 of 40
18. It is submitted that the Status Reports of the IRP, prepared in
compliance of order dated 26.05.2023 passed in CP IB No. 2721/2019
and upheld by NCLAT vide order dated 19.07.2023, states that Three
C siphoned off monies to related entities including, Bright Buildtech
and Lavender and from such siphoned off monies, assets were
generated. The IRP has taken possession of two laundered assets
namely: (i) Hotel Plot No. A-3a, Nehru Place, New Delhi admeasuring
3546 sq. mtrs. situated at Nehru Place, New Delhi; and (ii) Units in
the Project Ace Palms Floors, Sector-89, Gurgaon.
Bright Buildtech Close Nexus With Three C Group
19. It is submitted that Bright Buildtech (respondent No. 8) part of Ace
Group, is a related entity of Three C Group and monies have been
siphoned off to it by Three C, as also established by PAO dated
28.03.2025 passed by the ED. Further, the forensic audit conducted in
Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., a company of Three C Group, states
that Bright Buildtech is a related party to the Three C Group. It is
further submitted that Ace Group is a proxy of Three C Group and
Status Report-3 of IRP states that three companies of Three C Group
were taken over by Ace Group, and this includes holding company of
Bright Buildtech, which was acquired for only Rs. 1 lakh (though
assets were to the tune of Rs. 700 crores approximately).
20. Further, there are contempt proceedings being Contempt Case (C) No.
1381/2025 against the directors of Bright Buildtech, due to violation
of order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble Division Bench of
this Court. Reliance is placed on Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of
India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 , to urge that a party in contempt of court
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 20 of 40
cannot seek indulgence from the court until cleared of contempt.
Lavender Close Nexus With Three C Group
21. It is submitted that Lavender is a related entity of Three C Group and
is under control of Mr. Nirmal Singh, ex-promoter of Three C and his
close allies. In the PAO dated 28.03.2025 by the ED, the relationship
between Three C and Lavender has been detailed and the Nehru Place
Property has already been attached. Additionally, the Special Court
vide order dated 27.11.2025 has directed that the properties attached in
PAO dated 28.03.2025 shall be disposed of and restituted to realise
Three C financial creditors‟ claims. Even the recall application against
the order dated 27.11.2025 has been dismissed.
22. Further, the relationship between Lavender and Three C Group has
been established in the Forensic Audit conducted in Granite Gate
Properties Pvt Ltd., which reports that Lavender is a related party to
Three C Group. Lavender is just a façade by Mr. Nirmal Singh, ex-
promoter of Three C, and even the IRP of Three C has detailed in its
Status Report that Lavender is a related entity of Three C Group.
Delhi Brass & Metals Works Pvt Ltd And Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt
Ltd. Relation
23. It is submitted that while Delhi Brass Pvt Ltd. asserts that it has a prior
charge over the Nehru Place Property, however, the said property is a
laundered asset of Three C and has been attached by the ED. Even, the
Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt/ Ltd. claims development rights over the
Nehru Place Property, however, a similar application filed by it before
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn.
24. Lastly, it is submitted that the restitution of attached assets of Three C
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 21 of 40
is ongoing vide orders dated 20.11.2025 and 06.02.2026 passed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court; the PMLA Court order dated 27.11.2025 and
other orders upheld by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2026 and
21.01.2026 in W.P. (Crl) No. 2/2026. All these proceedings and order
show that directions to secure and monetize the attached assets of
Three C, passed in impugned order dated 22.10.2024 was right.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF GWC/ RESPONDENT NO. 5
25. It is submitted that the present case is of a large-scale fraud affecting
numerous homebuyers‟ investments and the directions passed in the
impugned order were necessary to protect the homebuyers‟ interest.
The applications seeking recall of the impugned order are based on
procedural objections and the same cannot be above substantive
justice. The vacation of the impugned order would enable dissipation
of assets, which are products of fraud and diversion of public monies
and if permitted would frustrate the restitution framework. Writ courts
can grant effective remedies to do complete justice, especially matters
involving public interest and systemic fraud. Prayers sought in the
main writ petition are wide enough to warrant relevant reliefs.
Reliance has been placed on Nur Islam & Ors. v. State of Assam &
Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3051; Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002)
1 SCC 100 and M/s Shiv Shankar Dal Mills & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 437.
26. It is submitted that subsequent events further shows that directions
given in the impugned order are compatible with other judicial orders
related to the matter. The said subsequent events being: (i) orders
dated 20.11.2025 and 06.02.2026 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 22 of 40
directing assets‟ restitution for realisation of Three C‟s financial
creditors‟ claims; (ii) order dated 27.11.2025 by the Special Court
(PMLA) mandating restoration and monetisation of attached assets;
and (iii) orders dated 03.01.2026 and 21.01.2026 of this Court,
towards implementation of the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court and order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the
Special Court, (PMLA), which were challenged before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court by way of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 11510/2026 and vide
order dated 10.04.2026, the same was disposed of without interfering
with orders of this Court. These events shows that restitution process
is ongoing and the impugned order further facilitates monetisation of
assets for the benefit of stakeholders and recall of such order would
create the risk of dissipation of assets.
27. It is submitted that applicants i.e., Lavender and Bright Buildtech are
proxies/related entities of the Three C Group. The Nehru Place
Property is already attached by ED vide PAO dated 28.03.2025 and
has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 23.09.2025.
Further, the Special Court (PMLA) vide order dated 27.11.2025
directed that Nehru Place Property be liquidated, and the asset claimed
by Bright Buildtech be investigated and secured. The applications
seeking recall of the said order were dismissed by the Special Court
(PMLA) vide order dated 24.04.2026. It is submitted that status quo
granted by the Hon‟ble Division Bench vide orders 11.11.2024 and
17.03.2025 be extended until orders are given by appropriate forum. It
is submitted that even an FIR No. 137/2017 has been filed against the
promoters of Three C, arising from the same fraud charges.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 23 of 40
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE IRP OF THREE C
28. It is submitted that the recall applications are misconceived and
baseless and the impugned order is necessary to safeguard the assets
of Three C and stakeholders‟ interest. After, the IRP of Three C was
appointed, anomalies irregularities surfaced regarding admission
claims of erstwhile the IRP/RP, who was suspended by the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Board of India (“ IBBI ”). During hearing, NCLT vide
order dated 26.05.2023, directed the re-verification of all claims and
the said order was upheld by the NCLAT vide order dated 19.07.2023.
Thereafter, IRP submitted three detailed status reports (also placed on
record before this Court) which have received judicial recognition
right up to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to directions of this
Court in order dated 23.07.2024, the IRP proposed a plan of action
supported by another Status Report-4, forming the basis of the
impugned order.
29. In response to the contention that the IRP was functus-officio at the
time of passing of the impugned order it is submitted that IRP was not
functus-officio and only the IRP was in control of the management of
Three C, even after the order dated 28.08.2023 of NCLAT. Order
dated 28.08.2023 was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
and it was IRP who represented Three C and also while recording the
appearance of IRP in order dated 13.10.2023, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court directed that status quo be maintained. Further, when civil
appeal being C.A. No. 7704/2023 was filed by Three C through Mr.
Rajeev Baisoya, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated
04.12.2023 directed Mr. Rajiv Baisoya to be personally present to
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 24 of 40
produce authorization for preferring the appeal. Thereafter, when
fraud was clearly made out the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 11.03.2024, thereby making it clear that it was only
IRP who could have represented the company. Furthermore, pursuant
to order dated 19.11.2024 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the NCLT in
its order dated 17.12.2024 observed that “ On the face of various
judicial orders and there being nobody to take responsibility of the
Corporate Debtor, the IRP acted with required responsibility and
magnanimity. ”
30. In response to the contention that the Status Reports of the IRP have
not been accepted by the adjudicating authority i.e., NCLT and hence,
cannot be relied upon, it is submitted that Status Reports of IRP have
been considered even by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in C.A.
6792/2023 and appeals and on the basis of the Status Reports the order
dated 13.10.2023 was passed. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its order
dated 11.03.2024 even dismissed the relief sought by Three C in I.A.
No. 240498/2023 in C.A. 7704/2023 to restrain IRP from representing
as AR of Three C. Pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2024 of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 6792/2023, the NCLT vide order
dated 17.12.2024 upheld the Status Reports of the IRP. Further, as per
Section 20(1) of IBC, IRP is required to make all endeavours to
protect the property and manage the operations of Three C (Corporate
Debtor).
31. In response to the contention that order has been reserved in I.A No.
11516/24 in W.P. 1567/2024 seeking recall of order dated 02.02.2024,
as the said order was also passed on the basis of IRP report, it is
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 25 of 40
submitted that that the same does not imply that the Status reports
were set aside. The IRP of Three C following directions of this Court
in order dated 23.07.2024 proposed his Plan of Action, which was
necessary to safeguard company‟s assets and stakeholders‟ interests.
32. Lastly, in response to the contention that on revival of CIRP,
applications have been filed inter-alia seeking removal of IRP and
setting aside of the Chaspa notice, it is submitted that pursuant to
order dated 19.11.2024 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.
No. 6792/2023, GWA filed an application raising objections against
the status reports of IRP and seeking removal of IRP. NCLT vide its
order dated 17.12.2024 rejected the application for removal of IRP
and upheld the Status Reports of the IRP.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
33. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties on the main petition
as well as on the applications, and carefully perused the pleadings and
documents annexed with the petition and the applications.
34. The respondent No. 1 filed a Compliance Affidavit dated 27.02.2024
pursuant to orders dated 05.01.2024 and 09.01.2024, wherein the
explanation to change in the status of Three C on the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs‟ website has been provided. The relevant
paragraphs from the said Compliance Affidavit read as under:-
“4. That the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated
05.01.2024 has directed the Respondent No. 1 to provide an
explanation with respect to the change of status of the
company M/s Three C Shelters Private Limited bearing CIN
U70200DL2010PTC212015 having its registered office at
C-23 Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-I NA, New Delhi, South
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 26 of 40
Delhi, Delhi on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal. It
is submitted that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its
General Circular No. 08/2020 dated 06.03.2020 has
empowered the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
(IBBI) to change the status of a company from
"Active"/"Inactive" to "CIRP"/"Liquidation" or vice versa.
The relevant extract of the forementioned circular is
reproduced herein as: …
It is pertinent to mention herein in view of the above
mentioned notification, IBBI is the only competent authority
to make a request for change of status of the company.
5. That the e-governance cell of the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs vide email dated 22.02.2024 has clarified that the
"Change Request Form" for change of status of the
company to "Active" was submitted by the IBBI vide request
dated 22.09.2023. It is submitted the averment of the
Petitioner stating IRP alone has the power to submit a
request for the change in status of the Company is
misleading, the same can be inferred from the
abovementioned circular dated 06.03.2020.
6. That Respondent No.1 in compliance of para 19 of the
order dated 05.01.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court has
carried out the necessary amendment/modification and as
such the MCA Master Data of M/s Three C Shelters Pvt.
Ltd. no longer shows Mr. Rajiv Baisoya & Mr Girish
Chandra Joshi as Director and Additional Director, of the
aforementioned Company, respectively. …
7. That Respondent No.1 incompliance of para 19 of the
order dated 09.01.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court,
Respondent No.1 has taken the necessary steps and vide
email dated 11.01.2024 Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik has
been provided with a copy of the e-form DIR-12 submitted
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 27 of 40
by Mr. Girish Chander Joshi for appointment of Mr. Rajiv
Baisoya as a Director in the abovementioned Company.”
35. A perusal of the paragraph No. 6, reproduced above, clearly shows
that the name of Mr. Rajiv Baisoya and Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi has
been removed as Director and Additional Director, respectively, for
Three C. Further, in the order dated 22.10.2024, particularly paragraph
No. 21 (as reproduced above), respondent No. 1 was directed that the
company status of Three C shall show as „under CIRP‟ on its website.
36. In this view of the matter and more particularly in view of paragraph
No. 6 of the Compliance Affidavit dated 27.02.2024 and paragraph
No. 21 of the order dated 22.10.2024, the prayer Nos. (i) and (ii)
sought in the present writ petition stands satisfied.
37. As for prayer No. (iii), wherein the petitioner is seeking direction to
the respondent No. 2 to investigate the frauds committed, has become
infructuous in view of the application i.e., CM APPL. No 7700/2026,
wherein the petitioner seeks that present petition be disposed of as the
reliefs forming subject matter of the petition stand addressed through
various order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and Special Court
(PMLA). The relevant paragraphs from the said application read as
under: -
“15. Thus, the restitution of the attached assets of Three C
Shelters Pvt. Ltd. for the benefit of its financial creditors
stands expressly recognised and directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as well as by the Ld Special Court
under the PMLA, and the IRP stands bound by a solemn
undertaking recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which
has also been observed by this Hon’ble Court.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 28 of 40
16. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, the
principal reliefs and concerns forming the subject matter of
the present writ petition stand effectively addressed, and no
further adjudication survives in the present proceedings.
17. The continuation of the present writ petition in the face
of binding undertakings recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court would serve no useful purpose and would amount to a
purely academic exercise.
PRAYER
xxxxxxxx
a. Dispose of the present writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No.
174 of 2024, in view of the subsequent developments and
particularly the undertaking furnished by the Interim
Resolution Professional of Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
20.11.2025…”.
38. Additionally, I am also of the view that as far as prayer no. (iii) of the
main petition is concerned, the petitioner has equally efficacious
remedy under the provisions of the IBC, PMLA, and the Companies
Act, 2013. Under the provisions of PMLA, the ED has already issued
PAO dated 28.03.2025 and 08.07.2025.
39. Further, the matter as raised in the present petition is already pending
before various competent fora, especially before NCLT in pursuance
of the order dated 19.11.2024 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court whereby
CIRP of Three C has been revived.
40. Most importantly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in order/judgment
dated 20.02.2025 passed in CM APPL. Nos. 10599/2024 and
11516/2024 in W.P. (C) No. 1567/2024, wherein the applications were
seeking recall of the interim order dated 02.02.2024, directed the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 29 of 40
Central Government to investigate into the affairs of Three C. The
operative portion of the said order/judgement reads as under:-
“FINAL ORDER/DIRECTIONS
75. In view of the foregoing discussion, in modification of
earlier order dated 02.02.2024, the following directions are
passed:
(i) CM APPL. 10599/2024 moved on behalf of the
applicant/respondent No.7, Mr. Vidur Bhardwaj, for
recalling of order dated 02.02.2024 is hereby dismissed;
(ii) The Central Government is hereby directed that the
investigation be conducted into the affairs of the
respondent No.3/Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. besides its
Ex-Promoters and Directors/Management viz. respondent
No.6/Mr. Nirmal Singh, respondent No.7/Mr. Vidur
Bhardwaj, respondent No.8/Mr. Surpreet Suri and
respondent No.9/Mr. Rajeev Bisoya besides respondent
No.10/Mr. Girish Chander Joshi through the SFIO to
unearth the manner in which the funds generated from
the petitioner and other homebuyers have been siphoned
off to the detriment of its secured and unsecured creditors
including the homebuyers;
(iii) In so far as respondent No.11/Orris, as well as ACE
Group of Companies represented by
applicants/respondents No. 12 and 13 are concerned, the
said companies shall be outside the purview of
investigation by the SFIO;
(iv) However, respondents No.1 & 2 shall continue to
investigate the matter with regard to ascertaining the
genuineness of the transactions between respondent No.
11/Orris and respondent No. 3/TCSPL in accordance
Sections 206, 209, 216, 217, 219 and 224 of the
Companies Act, 2013, and take the matter to its logical
end;
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 30 of 40
(v) As regards respondent No. 11/Orris, respondent Nos.
1& 2 while conducting investigation shall have due
deference to various judgments/orders/directions passed
on the judicial side as well by the quasi-judicial
authorities;
(vi) As regards ACE Group of Companies too, respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 shall have due deference to various
judgments/orders/directions passed on the judicial side as
well by the quasi-judicial authorities
(vii) Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall investigate the matter
against the ACE Group of Companies uninfluenced by
the findings in the report of the IRP dated 09.08.2023 in
accordance with Sections 206, 209, 216, 217 and 224 of
the Companies Act, 2013;
(viii) In case the Investigating Officer appointed by
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 finds that there has been any
connection between the Management of respondent
No3/TCSPL as well as ACE Group of Companies with
regard to M/s. Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.; M/s. Mega
Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.; Three C Residency Pvt. Ltd;
Three C City Developers Pvt. Ltd., he shall be
empowered to inquire into the same and examine and
satisfy himself about the genuineness of such acquisitions
in accordance with law, except for those companies
where recourse could be taken under section 65 & 66 of
the IBC before the NCLT.”
(Emphasis added)
41. The review petition being REVIEW PET. 143/2025 against the said
order also came to be dismissed vide order/judgment dated
30.05.2025.
42. It is well settled law that when there is an efficacious alternative
remedy available, invocation of writ jurisdiction of High Court under
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 31 of 40
Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary. The Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has time and again reaffirmed the said legal position, reliance
has been placed on the judgment of Radha Krishan Industries v.
State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 , wherein it was observed as under:-
“C.1. Maintainability of the writ petition before the High
Court
24. The High Court has dealt with the maintainability of the
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on
the decision of this Court in CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline
Consumer Health Care Ltd. [CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline
Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 681 : 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 440] , the High Court noted that although it can
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it
must not do so when the aggrieved person has an effective
alternate remedy available in law. However, certain
exceptions to this “rule of alternate remedy” include where,
the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the
provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the fundamental
principles of judicial procedure; or has resorted to invoke
provisions, which are repealed; or where an order has been
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Applying this formulation, the High Court noted that the
appellant has an alternate remedy available under the GST
Act and thus, the petition was not maintainable.
xxxxxxxx
27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.
27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a
writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 32 of 40
the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is
available to the aggrieved person.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where:
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural
justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High
Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in
an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition
should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate
remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right
or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the
High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ
petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the
view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise
of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be
interfered with.”
(Emphasis added)
43. The said legal position has also been reiterated time and again by this
Court as well, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Ambika
Traders v. Commr., 2025:DHC:6181-DB, wherein it was observed as
under:-
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 33 of 40
“60. Moreover, the scope of writ jurisdiction is quite limited
when an efficacious and adequate alternative remedy is
available to the litigant. Where a statutory remedy exists
that is both efficacious and adequate, the invocation of the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 is
generally not warranted. While the existence of such
alternative remedy does not divest the High Court of its
jurisdiction to issue writs, it remains a material
consideration in the exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction. Where such alternate remedy exists, it would be
a sound exercise of judicial discretion to decline
interference under article 226, unless compelling
circumstances and grounds are demonstrated to justify such
invocation. This legal position stands affirmed by the
Supreme Court way back in the case of Union of
India v. T.R. Varma [1957 SCC OnLine SC 30.]….”
(Emphasis added)
44. I am of the view that the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy
under the provisions of IBC, PMLA and the Companies Act, 2013,
and the provisions are efficacious enough to investigate into the
serious fraud that has been alleged by the petitioner and provides
remedy under the said statues. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though the
judgments relied upon by the petitioner and respondent No.5, in
furtherance of their contention that prayers sought in the main
petitioner are wide enough to grant relevant reliefs in the impugned
order, are binding upon this Court, however, the exercise of restrain in
cases where equally efficacious remedy is available, is the norm. In
view of the order dated 19.11.2024 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court the
CIRP of Three C has been revived and the NCLT is already seized of
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 34 of 40
the matter. Hence, the petitioner and other parties in favour of the
impugned order have an alternative and equally efficacious
remedy/forum to address their grievances.
45. Now, coming to the applications filed seeking recall of the impugned
order dated 22.10.2024, it is an undisputed fact that the applicants
seeking recall of the impugned order were not parties to the main writ
petition at the time of the passing of the impugned order and hence,
they were not provided with the opportunity of being heard. Hence,
the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 is in violation of principles of
natural justice as it was passed without hearing the applicants.
46. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that since the
impugned order has been continuing for so long, the Court may allow
its continuance for some more time till the petitioner moves the
appropriate forum. I am of the view, that since the prayers made in the
main petition have either become infructuous or cannot be granted,
relying on the order/judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated
20.02.2026 in Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar,
2026 INSC 185, the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 cannot be
extended any further. The relevant paragraphs from Mangal Rajendra
Kamthe (supra) reads as under:-
“6. It is settled law that once the high court, upon
application of mind, declines to entertain a writ petition in
the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground
that an efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief is
available but such remedy has not been pursued by the
petitioner, the proceedings do not survive and must draw to
an end then and there; however, in such a circumstance
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 35 of 40
when no final relief can effectively be granted on the
petition, it is impermissible to pass an order in the nature of
an interim relief [either by granting stay of operation of the
order under challenge or by directing status quo to be
maintained] till such time the aggrieved petitioner
approaches the alternative forum. Such an order, as and
when passed, would be in the teeth of a Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
1
Rungta .
7. At the dawn of the Constitution, this is what the learned
Chief Justice speaking for the bench in Madan Gopal
Rungta (supra) had ruled:
13. ... the existence of the rights is the foundation of the
exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under this article.
The judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal,
however, shows that the Judges have decided nothing at
all in respect of the rights of the parties. Indeed they have
expressly stated that their observations should not in any
way be considered as deciding any of the rights or
contentions of the parties raised in the petitions. The
whole judgment shows that because of the requirement of
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code the present
respondents could not file a suit against the Government
for at least sixty days, the respondent’s position should
not in the interval be disturbed and accordingly the Court
gave the directions in its order of 2-8-1951. If there was
any doubt about the nature of the relief desired to be
granted by the order of 2nd August the same Judges have
made it perfectly clear by their order of 6th of August,
wherein they have stated that except for these directions
they were not prepared to make any other order on the
petitions. The result therefore is that while the Judges
declined to investigate and pronounce on the rights of the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 36 of 40
parties and expressly kept the determination thereof in
abeyance in the suit proposed to be filed by the present
respondents, they gave directions for interim relief till
such suit was filed. It must be noted that with the passing
of the order of 2-8-1951, containing directions in the
nature of interim relief the petitions were completely
disposed of and have not been kept pending for disposal.
Those directions embody therefore the final order passed
by the Court on these petitions. A preliminary objection
was raised about the maintainability of the appeals on
the ground that no final orders were passed on the
petitions. That objection must fail in view of the fact that
with these orders the petitions were disposed of finally
and nothing further remained to be done in respect of the
petitions. The fact that the operation of the order is
limited to three months or a week after the filing of the
intended suit does not prevent the order from being final.
14. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the Court
had no jurisdiction to pass such orders under Article 226
under the circumstances of the case. This is not a case
where the Court before finally disposing of a petition
under Article 226 gave directions in the nature of interim
relief for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. The
question which we have to determine is whether
directions in the nature of interim relief only could be
granted under Article 226, when the Court expressly
stated that it refrained from determining the rights of the
parties on which a writ of mandamus or directions of a
like nature could be issued.
15. In our opinion, Article 226 cannot be used for the
purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief
on the application as the High Court has purported to do.
The directions have been given here only to circumvent
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 37 of 40
the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code,
and in our opinion that is not within the scope of Article
226. An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and
as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to
the party on final determination of his rights in a suit for
(sic, or) proceeding. If the Court was of opinion that
there was no other convenient or adequate remedy open
to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate
the case on its merits and come to a decision as to
whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that
there was an infringement of any of their legal rights
which entitled them to a writ of mandamus or any other
directions of a like nature; and pending such
determination it might have made a suitable interim
order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the
Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and
expressly held that they should be investigated more
properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of
facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in
the nature of temporary injunctions, under Article 226 of
the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of Article
226 does not permit such an action. On that short ground
the judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal
cannot be upheld.”
(Emphasis added)
CONCLUSION IN W.P.(C) 174/2024, CM APPL. No 7700/2026
CM APPL. No. 18080/2025, CM APPL. No. 19005/2025, CM
APPL. No 19004/2025
47. Without going into the merits of the matter, in view of the aforesaid
discussion and in view of the application being CM APPL. No
7700/2026 preferred by the petitioner, the writ petition stands
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 38 of 40
disposed of. This Court in the present petition has not adjudicated on
the merits or demerits of the matter, the petitioner, the IRP of Three C
and respondent No. 5 are at liberty to initiate any/all legal action in
accordance with law, which shall be adjudicated on its own merits and
demerits. This court has neither modified nor vacated any order passed
any competent Court of jurisdiction.
48. Since the main writ petition has been disposed of and in view of the
aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 is hereby
vacated.
49. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 50797/2025
50. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking
recall of the order dated 22.04.2024 passed in C.M. APPL. No.
22897/2024 in the main writ petition.
51. Since the main writ petition has been disposed of, the order dated
22.04.2024 does not survive. Consequently, the present application
has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 7585/2026 & 7760/2026
52. These are applications filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking
stay of public auction notice dated 25.01.2026 purportedly issued
under the authority of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, IRP of Three C.
53. In view of the disposal of the main petition, the present applications
have become infructuous and are accordingly disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 7759/2026
54. This is an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read Section 151
of CPC, 1908 on behalf of Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. seeking
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 39 of 40
impleadment as respondent in the main writ petition.
55. In view of the disposal of the main petition, the present application has
become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.
JASMEET SINGH, J.
th
JULY 20 , 2026/ (HG)
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:20.07.2026
18:19
W.P.(C) 174/2024 Page 40 of 40