Rama Dairy MD’s Non-Bailable Warrants Won’t Be Executed If He Appears On Dec 11 And Later Required Dates: Delhi HC

In brief

The question

Whether execution of the non-bailable warrants against Sunil Kumar should be stayed pending consideration of the company’s revision and the Trial Court’s application for cancellation.

The court held

The application for stay was disposed of by directing that the non-bailable warrants against Sunil Kumar not be executed, provided he appeared before the Trial Court on 11 December 2026 and on every subsequent date when his personal presence was directed.

It also directed

The Trial Court was to decide the cancellation application on its merits, and the revision was listed for 20 January 2027.

01Facts

Rama Dairy Products Limited and its Managing Director, Sunil Kumar, were convicted under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, for failing to file financial statements for 2013–14 and 2014–15.

p. 1

Their appeals were dismissed, and the company filed the present revision; Sunil Kumar filed a separate revision, in which the operation of the fine imposed on him had been suspended on 17 September 2025.

p. 2

The Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants against Sunil Kumar on 22 July 2026, and the warrants remained unexecuted while his application for cancellation was pending.

pp. 3–4

The company sought a stay of execution, undertaking that Sunil Kumar would appear before the Trial Court on 11 December 2026 and on any later date when his personal presence was directed.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether execution of the non-bailable warrants against Sunil Kumar should be stayed pending consideration of the company’s revision and the Trial Court’s application for cancellation.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the Trial Court should determine the pending cancellation application independently, taking account of the orders in Sunil Kumar’s separate revision.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The order identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent governing the application.

p. 5

It applies the limited procedural principle that interim protection may be granted to prevent a pending challenge from being rendered infructuous, while leaving the merits of a pending application to the Trial Court for independent determination.

p. 5

The protection was made conditional on Sunil Kumar’s personal appearance when required.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Companies Act, 2013 Section 137

04Reasoning

The High Court noted that the company’s revision was not listed until 20 January 2027, while the Trial Court was to consider the warrant-cancellation application on 11 December 2026.

p. 4

Given that timing, and counsel’s undertaking regarding Sunil Kumar’s attendance, the Court considered limited protection appropriate to preserve the challenge from becoming infructuous.

pp. 4–5

It did not decide the correctness of the warrant order, observing that the cancellation application was pending before the Trial Court and that the order was not directly in issue in this revision.

p. 4

It directed the Trial Court to decide that application on its merits, having regard to the orders in CRL.REV.P. 326/2025 and without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.

p. 5