Delhi High Court · 2025

$~SB-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3228/2025 ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: versus NATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Verma, Adv.; Mr. Saksham Thareja, Adv.; Mr. Nikhil Thakur, Adv,; alongwith Mr. Sandeep Goel (Resolution Professional) for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 29.08.2025 CM APPL. 54108/2025 1. This application has been filed by Respondent No.3 seeking correction of typographical errors in the judgment dated 01.08.2025, passed by this Court. 2. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 that in paragraph No.5 “order dated 27.03.2015” be read as “27.03.2025”. Similarly, in paragraph No.6 “NCLT vide Order dated 24.03.2025” be read as “NCLAT vide Order dated 24.03.2025”. In paragraph No.10 “Respondents No.2, 3 & 4” be read as “Respondents No.2, 4 & 5” and at paragraphs No.6, 28, 34 & 35, “Resolution Plan” be read as “CIRP Admission Order” for the reason that for Respondent No.3 only an application under Section 7 of the IBC has been admitted by the NCLT. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 12:14:45

3. In view of the fact that the errors are inadvertent, the same are rectified and the corrected paragraphs No.5, 6, 10, 28, 34 & 35 reads as under: “5. Respondent No. 1 has also prayed for vacation of stay granted by this Court in its order dated 27.03.2025 contending that substantial amount of money is to be received by the Respondent No.1 from Respondents No.3, 4 and 5. 6. Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, contends that the present Petition is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedies available to the Petitioner under the IBC. He states that the Petitioner primarily seeks restraint on the Respondent No.1/Applicant, which is an asset reconstruction company, from continuing legal proceedings before forums under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as “RDDB Act”) or under the IBC by exercising its legal rights against Respondents No.3, 4 & 5. He states that Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 collectively owe a whopping amount of Rs.7800 crores. He also states that the Petitioner has already approached the NCLAT by moving an application in the Petition filed by the ex-Directors of the old avatar of the Petitioner-company challenging the CIRP Admission Order passed by the NCLT, wherein all the facts, which have been stated in the present Writ Petition qua Respondent No.3, had been raised. He states that the said application has been disposed of by the NCLAT vide Order dated 24.03.2025 and the remedy of the Petitioner is to challenge the said Order before the appropriate forum. He states that even after exhausting its right to appeal before the NCLAT and failing to get any favourable order, the Petitioner cannot approach this Court without exercising its remedy under the IBC itself. He has laid emphasis on the proposition that the IBC is a separate code in itself. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 12:14:45 ***** 10. Learned Senior Counsel also states that the Petitioner is indulging in forum shopping. It is stated that the Petitioner approached the NCLT on 23.07.2024, where it made submissions that it intended to settle the debt of Respondent No.3, however, the NCLT did not give indulgence to the Petitioner stating it has no locus. He states that this order was not challenged by the Petitioner and has accordingly attained finality. He further states that the Petitioner approached the NCLAT by way of an Intervention Application dated 22.10.2024 and an Additional Affidavit dated 18.11.2024 was filed in the proceedings qua the Respondent No. 3. He states that the Petitioner appeared on 8 dates from 25.10.2024 before the NCLAT, which disposed off its application without any finding to the effect that NCLT/NCLAT does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in the intervention application. He states that this order has also not been challenged by the Petitioner be resorting to the remedies provided under law. He states that the Petitioner simply chose to approach this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction without even disclosing the NCLT and NCLAT orders in the Writ Petition. He further states that the stay that has been obtained by the Petitioner was obtained completely in collusion with the Respondents No.2, 4 & 5 behind the back of the Petitioner without presenting the correct facts and this Court has been mislead into passing the interim order. ***** 28. The SAP Agreement was entered into between Respondent No.2, Petitioner and other financial institutions. In the meantime, the debts taken by Respondents No.3 to 5 were assigned to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 also was a signatory to the SAP Agreement. Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings against Respondents No.3 and 4 before the NCLT. As far as Respondent No.3 is concerned, the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 12:14:45 CIRP admission Order has attained finality. The said Plan was challenged before the NCLAT when the Petitioner moved an application for intervention. Vide Order dated 24.03.2025, the appeal filed by the erstwhile Director of Respondent No.3 was dismissed. It is pertinent to note that there is no discussion on the application for intervention filed by the Petitioner therein. ***** 34. The Petitioner has already challenged the CIRP admission Order against Respondent No.3 before the NCLAT by moving an application for intervention. The said application has been filed in the appeal filed by the erstwhile Director of Respondent No.3 challenging the Resolution Plan dated 20.09.2022 before the NCLAT in Appeal No. 1930/2024 and that the appeal has been dismissed on 24.03.2025 but there is no discussion whatsoever on the application for intervention filed by the Petitioner. After having availed of the remedy before the NCLT, the Petitioner has to exhaust the remedy under the IBC or even file a review against the Order dated 24.03.2025 saying that the application of the Petitioner has not been adjudicated on merits. 35. The argument raised by Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Petitioner approached this Court since Respondent No.1 is the instrumentality of the State, and therefore, it is a public law remedy, does not impress this Court. The question that arises in this case is as to whether the CIRP of Respondent No.3 would directly impinge on the Resolution Plan dated 20.09.2022 of the Petitioner and the SAP Agreement. In the opinion of this Court, this question can be best be addressed by the authorities under the IBC because they are approvers of the Resolution Plan of the Petitioner.” 4. The errors stand corrected accordingly. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 12:14:45

5. The application is disposed of. 6. Let this Order be read conjointly with the Order dated 01.08.2025 and a copy of this Order be also given as and when a certified copy of the Order dated 01.08.2025 is sought for. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J AUGUST 29, 2025 Rahul