01Facts
The applicant sought clarification under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, of the NCLAT’s order dated 23 September 2025.
p. 1It submitted that its undertaking not to dispose of company property was confined to sales to related parties and that the order should not prevent ordinary-course sales or transfers to allottees and homebuyers.
p. 1On 18 November 2025, the NCLAT directed that company properties not be sold to related parties and required appellant consent for any stock sale, with silence treated as consent.
pp. 2–3The Supreme Court stayed the consent requirement but required the appellant to abide by its undertaking not to sell stock to related parties, subject to compliance with the NCLT’s order dated 14 June 2024.
p. 3On 14 October 2026, the Supreme Court made that interim order absolute during the pendency of the appeal and left other issues open.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the NCLAT should clarify its order dated 23 September 2025 to limit the undertaking against disposal of property to sales to related parties and confirm that ordinary-course sales to allottees and homebuyers were not restricted.
p. 1 · ¶ 9ii.2. Whether such clarification remained necessary after the NCLAT’s subsequent order and the Supreme Court’s orders.
¶ 6–903Law Applied
Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 was invoked as the basis for seeking clarification or modification.
p. 1The Tribunal also applied the procedural effect of its subsequent order: it held that the order dated 23 September 2025 had merged into the order dated 18 November 2025.
¶ 6The Supreme Court’s operative directions—staying the consent requirement while preserving the undertaking not to sell stock to related parties, subject to compliance with the NCLT’s order—governed the interim position.
¶ 7–8The Tribunal did not state or apply any further substantive legal test.
04Reasoning
The NCLAT reasoned that the requested clarification concerned the 23 September 2025 order, but that order had been superseded by the Tribunal’s order of 18 November 2025.
¶ 6The Supreme Court had then addressed the relevant restrictions, stayed the requirement to obtain appellant consent for stock sales, and maintained the undertaking against sales to related parties.
¶ 7–8In light of those subsequent orders, the Tribunal found no occasion to clarify the earlier order.
¶ 905Holding
The NCLAT dismissed I.A. No. 5985 of 2025, holding that no further clarification of the 23 September 2025 order was warranted in view of the subsequent NCLAT and Supreme Court orders.
¶ 10It directed that the appeal be placed before the roster bench on the date already fixed.
¶ 19Original Court PDF
Smt. Vimla Devi Sawalka & Anr & Ors.vsShivgyan Developers Private Limited And Others & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
