Ritu Khanna v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2025 TaxPub(CL) 870 (NCLAT- New Del) IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI [JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN] CHAIRPERSON & [ARUN BAROKA] MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ritu Khanna v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) No. 59 of 2025 8 April, 2025 Appellant by: Deepak Khosla, Advocate Respondents by: Raunak Dhillon, Isha Malik and Jeezan Riyaz, Advocates for R-10 Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Rai and Ms. Moha Paranjpe, Advocates for R-1 JUDGMENT *Ashok Bhushan, J.* This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 10-9-2024 passed by the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench), rejecting CA 90/PB/2024 filed by the appellant. The appellant has filed the application CA 90/PB/2024 for recall of the order dated 15-12-2023 passed by the NCLT, which application has been rejected. 2. It is necessary to notice background facts, giving rise to filing of CA No.90/PB/2024: (i) C.P. No.71/ND/2020 was an application filed by Union of India under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short the Act) against the Delhi Gymkhana Club as Respondent No. 1. (ii) One Col. Ashish Khanna, the husband of the appellant was impleaded as Respondent No.18 as a secretary of Delhi Gymkhana Club in the petition filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act. (iii) NCLT proceeded to pass various order in the said company petition. (iv) Col. Ashish Khanna has filed CA 440/PB/2022, praying for recall of the order dated 24-4-2020 and all order passed subsequent to 24-4-2020. The order dated 24-4-2020 was passed by single member judicial. The application CA440/2022 was dismissed by the NCLT vide order dated 15-12-2023 and cost of Rs.50,000 was also imposed. (v. Col. Ashish Khanna, the husband of the appellant has filed another application CA 49/2024, praying for recall of the order dated 15-12-2023 and to declare it per incuriam which also came to be dismissed on 14-3-2024. (vi) Col. Ashish Khanna filed Comp. App. (AT) No. 242/2024 in this Tribunal, challenging the order dated 15-12-2023, there being delay in filing of the appeal, I.A. No.5502/2024 was also filed praying for condonation of delay. The I.A. No.5502 of 2024 came to be considered by this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2024, rejected the application, in consequence for dismissal of delay condonation application, memo of appeal was also rejected. The order dated 15-12-2023 became final. (vii) The CA No.90/PB/2024 was filed by the appellant, the wife of Col. Ashish Khanna for recall of the order dated 15-12-2023, which application was filed on 03-4-2024 after the CA No.49/2024 was filed by her husband to recall the order dated 15-12-2023 and was rejected on 14-3-2024. (viii) The NCLT vide impugned order rejected the application, holding that applicant has no locus to raise the question of jurisdiction with respect to proceeding in CP 71/2020. NCLT holding that applicant has no locus to raise question of jurisdiction or any other question of law the applicant being not party, rejected the application as not maintainable. In paragraph 7 & 8 of the order following was observed: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2025 TaxPub(CL) 870 (NCLAT- New Del)

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI

[JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN] CHAIRPERSON & [ARUN BAROKA] MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Ritu Khanna v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 59 of 2025

8 April, 2025

Appellant by: Deepak Khosla, Advocate

Respondents by: Raunak Dhillon, Isha Malik and Jeezan Riyaz, Advocates for R-10

Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Rai and Ms. Moha Paranjpe, Advocates for R-1

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 10-9-2024 passed by the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench), rejecting CA 90/PB/2024 filed by the appellant. The appellant has filed the application CA 90/PB/2024 for recall of the order dated 15-12-2023 passed by the NCLT, which application has been rejected.

2. It is necessary to notice background facts, giving rise to filing of CA No.90/PB/2024:

(i) C.P. No.71/ND/2020 was an application filed by Union of India under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short the Act) against the Delhi Gymkhana Club as Respondent No. 1.

(ii) One Col. Ashish Khanna, the husband of the appellant was impleaded as Respondent No.18 as a secretary of Delhi Gymkhana Club in the petition filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act.

(iii) NCLT proceeded to pass various order in the said company petition.

(iv) Col. Ashish Khanna has filed CA 440/PB/2022, praying for recall of the order dated 24-4-2020 and all order passed subsequent to 24-4-2020. The order dated 24-4-2020 was passed by single member judicial. The application CA440/2022 was dismissed by the NCLT vide order dated 15-12-2023 and cost of Rs.50,000 was also imposed.

(v. Col. Ashish Khanna, the husband of the appellant has filed another application CA 49/2024, praying for recall of the order dated 15-12-2023 and to declare it per incuriam which also came to be dismissed on 14-3-2024.

(vi) Col. Ashish Khanna filed Comp. App. (AT) No. 242/2024 in this Tribunal, challenging the order dated 15-12-2023, there being delay in filing of the appeal, I.A. No.5502/2024 was also filed praying for condonation of delay. The I.A. No.5502 of 2024 came to be considered by this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2024, rejected the application, in consequence for dismissal of delay condonation application, memo of appeal was also rejected. The order dated 15-12-2023 became final.

(vii) The CA No.90/PB/2024 was filed by the appellant, the wife of Col. Ashish Khanna for recall of the order dated 15-12-2023, which application was filed on 03-4-2024 after the CA No.49/2024 was filed by her husband to recall the order dated 15-12-2023 and was rejected on 14-3-2024.

(viii) The NCLT vide impugned order rejected the application, holding that applicant has no locus to raise the question of jurisdiction with respect to proceeding in CP 71/2020. NCLT holding that applicant has no locus to raise question of jurisdiction or any other question of law the applicant being not party, rejected the application as not maintainable. In paragraph 7 & 8 of the order following was observed: