Supreme Court reverses Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's bail rejection order

In Sunil Dhanwat @ Atharva Sunil Dhanwat @Sunil Pandurang Dhanwat vs, The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and N.V. Anjaria passed a 2-page long order dated July 25, 2025 granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The order reads: "Considering the nature of the case, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case, however, this will be subject to the total cooperation of the petitioner in the ongoing investigations. Consequently, we allow the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and make the order dated 09.05.2025 as absolute. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court." 

The petition was disposed of. The arose out of a 3-page long order dated March 24, 2025 passed by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the Patna High Court in Sunil Dhanwat @ Atharva Sunil Dhanwat @Sunil Pandurang Dhanwat vs, The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025). 

Justice Singh had dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner because of the gravity of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner was an accused in a complaint case of 2024, for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He apprehended his arrest and his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the High Court under the order impugned. Being aggrieved, he had approached the Supreme Court and vide order dated May 9, 2025, the Court while issuing notice, granted interim protection to the petitioner subject to cooperation in the  investigation.  

The prosecution case was that petitioner being the Proprietor-cum-Director of Spekans EPC Pvt. Ltd., Pune engaged the complainant for a project related to structure fabrication at a site in Surat (Gujarat). The complainant alleged that he invested Rs. 50,85,656/- in the said project, whereas petitioner made a payment of Rs. 23,38,000/-via RTGS, leaving outstanding amount of Rs. 27,47,656/-. It was also alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 17,47,656/-, which bounced due to insufficiency of fund.

The complainant's counsel had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail in the High Court. He had submitted that petitioner did not deny the allegation made in the complaint petition and the cheque issued by the petitioner bounced due to insufficiency of fund. In this case, petitioner neither appeared nor surrendered before the Court and as such, he was declared absconder and process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against him to ensure his appearance in the Court. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. He relied on the following decisions in support of this submission: (i) Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 (ii) State of MP vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 17 and (iii) Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955.

The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023.

Justice Singh's order reads: "It is a case of ‘cheque bounce’. The cheque, issued by the petitioner, got bounced due to insufficiency of fund. In this case, process of Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated on 12.12.2024 and as such, petitioner is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is dismissed." Reversing, Justice Singh's order, the Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner by making its order dated May 9, 2025 as absolute. By its earlier, the Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner. 

 

Phase IV, Phase V of Action Plan for Arrears Reduction in District Judiciary in Bihar

During Phase IV (July 2025-December 2025), with regard to more than 30, 20-30 and 10 years old cases for States with High Arrears like Bihar, the plan for arrears reduction includes disposal of all cases over 30 years old (including remaining cases which could not be disposed of in Phase III). With regard to with regard to cases which are between 20-30 years old (including remaining cases which could not be disposed of in Phase III), endeavour should be made to dispose all such matters during Phase IV.

During Phase V (January 2026- June 2026), complete disposal of 30 years and 20-30 years old cases is envisaged in the states of Bihar, focus shall be on final disposal of any remaining cases over 30 years and 20-30 years that could not be disposed of in the earlier phases, to bring down the number to zero.

Reference: Phase IV, Phase V of Action Plan for Arrears Reduction in District Judiciary

 

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh

In Rahul Kumar@ Rikesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhyan passed a 3-page long order dated July 24, 2025, wherein it set aside the 3-page long order dated September 12, 2024 by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court who had rejected the bail prayer.

The appellant's counsel contended that this was a case based on circumstantial evidence. Even the cause of death as per the autopsy report was not clear. He pointed out that it has been admitted that the body was found in river water, therefore, possibility of death on account of drowning cannot be ruled out given the fact that the autopsy report showed that lungs were found filled with water. It was submitted that the appellant has suffered incarceration of over a period exceeding one year and there was no likelihood that the appellant would misuse the liberty of bail during the course of trial. The counsel for the State could not dispute that as per the autopsy report, the cause of death is not ascertainable. 

Supreme Court's order reads:"6. Having regard to the facts of the case as also the contents of the autopsy report brought on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for release on bail during pendency of the trial on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order rejecting the bail prayer is set aside." It ordered that the appellant be released on bail.

Patna High Court had heard an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide order dated April 23, 2024 and modification order dated June 12, 2024 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in Serial Case No. 317 of 2023, Special Case No. 392 of 2023 which arose out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2023 dated August 23, 2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 364, 365, 506, 302, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(r)(s) / 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

As per the prosecution case, It is alleged that the informant's grandson along with one Ganesh Kumar went to take bath in the Ganga River and she made suspicion that the appellant and the co-accused persons kidnapped her grandson with intent to kill and Pawan Kumar escaped.

The counsel for the appellant had submitted before the High Court that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He submitted that the caste name was not disclosed by anyone at the time of the alleged occurrence. He also submitted that no specific caste name was called by the appellant hence no case was made out under section of the SC/ST Act. There is nothing except suspicion. It was also alleged that the said occurrence took place at 7:30 AM on 23.08.2023 and the postmortem of deceased commenced on March 24, 2023 at 8:00 PM in which no ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The dead body was decomposed and rigor mortis was absent which indicated that the death of the deceased had taken place much before the alleged time of occurrence. The appellant had three criminal antecedents. The appellant was in custody since February 16, 2024.  The counsel for the informant and the Special Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant. It was stated that the eyewitness Pawan Kumar had made specific allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It was further stated that the accused persons were pressurizing the deceased to withdraw the case bearing Salimpur P.S. Case No. 166 of 2023 dated July 25, 2023 which was filed by the deceased against the co-accused persons and as the deceased did not compromise, he was brutally assaulted and thrown in the river.

In Rahul Kumar@ Rikesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2024), Justice Chandra Prakash Singh's order concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of allegation against the appellant, I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 and modification order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act, Patna in Serial Case No. 317 of 2023, Spl. Case No. 392 of 2023 arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2023 and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected." The respondent no. 2 was Bachchi Devi.  

It is noteworthy that although Justice Singh's order rejecting bail has been set aside, the Supreme Court has recorded in its order that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.  

Amid vacancy of 17 judges, Justice Sudhir Singh rejoins Patna High Court as second seniormost judge

Justice Sudhir Singh is back as the second seniormost judge of the Patna High Court. In November 2023, he was transferred from Patna High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court following the recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant. Justice Singh will retire on December 10, 2027. 

Reversing the recommendation of the previous Collegium, the current Supreme Court Collegium of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari and B.V. Nagarathna in its meeting held on May 26, 2025 recommended repatriation of Justice Singh to the parent High Court. These recommendations are made keeping in mind  the idea of 'better administration of justice'. 

Pursuant to the recommendation of the Collegium, a notification dated July 14, 2025 was issued by the Appointments Division, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India in this regard. In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India  transferred Justice Singh Judge Punjab and Haryana High Court to be a Judge of Patna High Court and to direct him to assume charge of his office in the Patna High Court.

Notably, Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant had reiterated its recommendation to transfer him to Punjab and Haryana High Court. The resolution of the Collegium was reiterated on August 11, 2023 keeping in mind  the idea of 'better administration of justice'.

The Collegium had reiterated its recommendation dated August, 2023 after considering the representation of Justice Singh and after consultation with the senior judges of the Patna High Court. Justice Singh was transferred during the tenure of Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran, the 44th Chief Justice of Patna High Court. Justice Chandran is currently a judge of the Supreme Court since January 16, 2025. He is going to retire on April 24, 2028. 

Subsequent to that Appointments Division, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India had issued a notification dated October 18, 2023 to transfer Justice Singh, Judge of the Patna High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

Justice Singh was elevated from the bar to be an additional judge of the Patna High Court on April 15, 2015 and was made a permanent judge on April 20, 2016. 

The High Court's approved judge strength is 53 but it is currently functioning only with 36 judges. As on November 30, 2022, the High Court was working with 34 judges. As of July 2025, the Court is functioning without its 17 judges. 

Kiran Rijiju, Union Minister of Law and Justice has informed Rajya Sabha that "Filling up of vacancies in the High Courts is a continuous, integrated and collaborative process between the Executive and the Judiciary. It requires consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities both at state and central level. While every effort is made to fill up the existing vacancies expeditiously, vacancies of Judges in High Courts do keep on arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of Judges and also due to increase in the strength of Judges." 

As per information provided by the minister in the Rajya Sabha in December 2022, the case load per judge in Patna High Court is 6631 cases, while the Case Clearance Rate (CCR) which is 114.39% in the Patna High Court. 

As of July 2025, 63,29,000 cases including 44,36,968 civil cases and 18,92,032 criminal cases are pending in the High Court due to paucity of judges.  Notably, 23% of the cases are more than 10 years old, 24% cases are 5-10 years old, 9% cases are 3-5 years old, 19% cases are 1-3 years old and 25% cases are less than 1 year old. 

The minister was replying to questions posed by Rakesh Sinha, MP in December 2022 regarding total strength of judges, number of vacancies and ime frame to fill them. The minister's reply and inaction during December 2022-July 2025 illustrates that quick delivery of justice is not a priority.  

Justice Sandeep Mehta Orders Rs 50 Lakh Compensation to Jammu & Kashmir Police Officer Who Suffered Custodial Torture

In Khursheed Ahmad Chohan vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed a 58-page long judgment dated, July 21, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"40....the impugned judgment dated 18th September, 2023, passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 111 of 2023 connected with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 592 of 2023, rejecting the qppellant’s prayer for transfer of investigation to the CBI, is hereby quashed and set aside."

The judgment reads:"The Director, CBI, shall forthwith direct registration of a RC in relation to the incidents of custodial violence and illegal detention of the appellant at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara during the period from 20th February, 2023 to 26th February, 2023, under relevant provisions of the penal statutes, based on the complaint filed by the appellant’s wife dated 1st March, 2023 and the medical evidence on record. The RC shall be registered within 7 days of this order.

II. The entire material collected in enquiry conducted so far, including all related documents, medical records, CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and case diary, shall be immediately handed over to the competent officer of the CBI. The Director, CBI, shall constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to investigate this matter. The police officials found responsible for the custodial torture shall be arrested forthwith and not later than a period of one month from today. The investigation shall be completed within 90 days of the date of registration of the RC.

III. The CBI shall also conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the systemic issues at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, including examination of all CCTV systems, interrogation from all personnel present during the relevant period, forensic examination of the premises, and review of all protocols and procedures followed for detention and interrogation of suspects.

IV. FIR No. 32 of 2023, registered against the appellant under Section 309 of the IPC at Police Station Kupwara, is hereby quashed being prima facie fabricated as, in our considered view, the same was registered with mala fide intent to shield the guilty officers and prejudice the rights of the appellant.

V. A sequel to the above discussion and in order to provide some solace to the victim and his family for the barbaric acts of custodial torture leading to complete castration, we hereby direct the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the appellant (victim). The said amount shall be recoverable from the officer(s) concerned against whom a departmental proceeding shall be initiated upon conclusion of the investigation by the CBI. The CBI shall submit its status report to this Court by 10th November, 2025."

Supreme Court sets aside bail order by Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar which "resulted ino travesty of justice"

In Victim 'X' vs. The of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered a 16-page long judgement dated July 21, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"...it is a fit case, warranting exercise of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere in the impugned order dated 18th January, 2024 which is hereby quashed and set aside." The judgement authored by Justice Mehta sets aside the 4-page long order dated January 18, 2024 delivered by Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar of Patna High Court in Vandana Gupta vs. The State of Bihar (2024).  

Relying on Supreme Court's decision in Shabeen Ahmad vs.The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) 4 SCC 172 which placed reliance upon the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768, Justice Mehta observed:"we are of the firm opinion that the present case is an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the High Court to respondent No.2-accused by a cryptic order dated 18th January, 2024 has resulted into travesty of justice. Grant of bail to the person accused of such grave offences without assigning reasons shakes the conscience of the Court and would have an adverse impact on the society. Furthermore, the release of the accused on bail would adversely impact the trial as there would be high chances of the material witnesses being threatened and influenced. Our conclusions are fortified by the fact that respondent No.2-accused has been reinstated to the position of Superintendent of another protection home which speaks volumes about her clout and influence with the administration." The respondent no. 2 is Vandana Gupta.   

Vandana Gupta, had approached the High Court against the order dated July 10, 2023 passed by Exclusive Special Court SC/ST Act, Patna whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with a Mahila P.S. case of 2022 under Sections 341, 323, 328, 376, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4 of the I.T. Act and sections 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was rejected.

The allegation was that Vandana Gupta, the appellant was a Superintendent of Remand Home who used to administer intoxicated medicine and injection to the informant/victim and other girls and they were subjected to sexually exploitation and mental torture. It was also alleged that appellant used to send the girls outside and forced them to be sexually exploited. The appellant used to allow entry of unknown male for wrongful purpose. The Supervision Report of the S.S.P., Patna dated June 25, 2022 on Uttar Raksha Girh, Gayaghat, Patna mentioned that "the nature of the informant/victim is quarrelsome". The appellant was languishing in judicial custody since August 27, 2022 before she was granted bail by Justice Pawar in January 2024.

The counter affidavit recorded that another girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. stated that appellant used to send those girls out who don’t have anyone they were sent out if they used to refuse, they were injected with needle and were become unconscious. It was submitted in the report of SP, Patna that few men used to come in Uttar Raksha Girh, Gayaghat, Patna by covering their faces and on the permission of Vandana Gupta, the appellant, those persons entered in the girh without registering their name in register. 

Justice Pawar had concluded:"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is no specific allegation against the appellant, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 is hereby set aside. 8. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail after framing of charge if the charge is not framed..." 

It emerges that Supreme Court's judgement has upheld the order dated July 10, 2023 passed by Exclusive Special Court SC/ST Act, Patna. 

Justice Mehta observed:"It is trite that bail once granted should not be cancelled ordinarily, but where the facts are so grave that they shake the conscience of the Court; and where the release of the accused on bail would have an adverse impact on the society, the Courts are not powerless and are expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law to cancel such bail orders so as to subserve the ends of justice. The present one is precisely a case of such nature. 25. We may note that the impugned order could have been quashed on the solitary ground of non-compliance of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which mandates that notice to a victim is essential before a prayer for bail is being considered, in a case where the offence/s under the SC/ST Act have been applied. 26. On going through the memo of appeal filed by the respondent-accused in the High Court, we find that the appellant-victim was not impleaded as a party respondent therein and hence, did not have the benefit of right of hearing as warranted by Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act." 

 

Supreme Court stays proceedings before Trial Court, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri refused to quash FIR in a private dispute under corporate law

In Sarita Bajaj & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order dated July 18, 2025 staying further proceedings before the Trial Court. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court had passed a 20-page long judgement dated May 9, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"....I have no other alternative but to hold that in the instant case, the F.I.R. being Kotwali P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024, dated 18th August, 2023, cannot be quashed. 32. The issue involving forgery and a criminal investigation has not been complained of by any instrumentality of the State. The dispute is absolutely private in nature involving two full brothers and their families in respect of partition and subsequent financial irregularity of family-owned companies. Therefore, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies. 33. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed on contest."

Drawing on the judgement passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, Justice Chaudhari was "convinced that the allegation made by the Petitioner for outstanding loan is frivolous as the Learned Court has already adjudicated the matter in detail and has come to its finding."  He observed:"The writ courts often do not delve deeply into factual disputes and the evidences as to whether the signatures done on Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) was fabricated or not and so the Court can not come to the conclusion as to whether the signature is forged or not but has come across the Judgement of NCLAT, New Delhi where it is seen that the Petitioners were previously capable of producing false document."

Sarita Bajaj, the Petitioner had invoked Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the FIR registered on January 16, 2024 at Kotwali Police Station in 2024 for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

On January 16, 2024, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the brother of Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Petitioner No. 2, had submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer of Kotwali Police Station, alleging inter alia, that Ajay Kumar Bajaj (son of Late Purshottam Das), Awi Bajaj (son of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), Sarita Bajaj (wife of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), and Asit Baran Paul (Chartered Accountant) were involved in fabricating documents to unlawfully transfer of shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to him, into the names of Awi Bajaj and Sarita Bajaj. He also alleged that the accused forged a letter to illegally withdraw funds from the account of Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently transferred the money to another company, Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited. The complainant, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, and the 4th accused, Ajay Kumar Bajaj, are entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Family Partition agreement. According to the agreement, it was decided that Bajaj Buildcon Private Limited, along with other associated companies, would be transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. The parties agreed to close all existing bank accounts of the respective companies and subsequently will transfer the shares. 

The terms of the Family Partition clearly indicated that the first party refers to Sushil Kumar Bajaj and his family, while the second party refers to Ajay Kumar Bajaj and his family. Clause 1 of the memorandum outlines the companies that will be transferred to the first party (the informant), and Clause 2 details the companies that will be given to the second party (Ajay Kumar Bajaj) and his family. The informant acknowledged the existence of this partition deed in his written complaint. It was confirmed that following the transfer of ownership, the shares of the respective companies will also be transferred to the names of the relevant parties and their families. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, Petitioner No. 1, Sarita Bajaj, and Petitioner No. 3, Awi Bajaj, were appointed as Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On February 27, 2021, the informant submitted his resignation from the Directorship of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and executed a formal instrument of transfer as required under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013. 

On February 27, 2021, on 27.02.2021, the informant executed two instruments of transfer. One instrument was executed with Sarita Bajaj, transferring 1,11,800 (One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to the informant, to her, in strict compliance with the terms of the family partition. It is important to note here that while the informant also resigned from Balaji Electrosteels Limited, as indicated in a notice, dated August 30, 2021, he did not transfer the shares of Balaji Electrosteels Limited, despite being obligated to do so. On February 27, 2021, the informant executed another instrument of transfer, through which he transferred 3,20,000 (Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. ltd to Awi Bajaj. These share transfers were carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the relevant details were duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies. In fact, the informant formally surrendered the shares to be transferred, and a certificate of transfer was subsequently issued. The instruments of transfer were properly stamped, executed in the presence of witnesses, and have never been contested or disputed previously. It is important to note that on February 28, 2021, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held, during which it was resolved to accept the informant's resignation from the Directorship of the company. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was authorized to file DIR-12 and any other required documents with the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Another Board meeting of Balaji Electrosteels Limited took place, and through a resolution, dated August 31, 2021, the informant's resignation from the company was formally accepted. On April 3, 2021, another meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held. The informant claims that he was not notified, informed, or made aware of the meeting.

The informant had already initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in 2022, seeking a declaration that the instruments of transfer, dated February 27, 2021 were forged and illegal, along with other related reliefs. Notably, certain terms of the Memorandum of Family Partition were not complied with or honoured by the informant. In response, Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Patna, which has been registered as a Title Suit of 2023. Among other allegations, the informant alleged that Kanika Buildcon Private Limited took a loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000.00 (Nine Crore Thirteen Lakh) only from Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited for the period between 2010 and 2017. The informant also claimed that according to their understanding, the loan does not incur any interest. 

Under the terms of the family partition, Kanika Buildcon was transferred to the informant, while Mandyati Dealcom was transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. As a result, the rights and liabilities associated with the respective companies were also transferred to the respective parties. Ajay Kumar Bajaj sent a letter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code, demanding that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. pay an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only. 

Besides this, an application was filed by Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. against Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in 2022, seeking recovery of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only, which includes both the principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 17,15,01,400. 

During the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, it was admitted that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. owes Rs. 1,22,50,000. On November 8, 2023, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the insolvency resolution process for Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, registered as Company Appeal (AT) No. 1540 of 2020. In connection with this, a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was handed over to Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., as evident from the order, dated December 4, 2023.

Notably, in the counter affidavit, filed by Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the Respondent No. 5, dated February 4, 2025, the High Court found that the accused individually and unlawfully transferred the share of Respondent No. 5 (the informant) amounting to Rs. 1,98,50,000/- to Awi Bajaj (Petitioner No. 3), and Rs. 69,10,000/- to Sarita Bajaj (Petitioner No. 1). These transfers were made using forged share transfer deeds. The transfer was not authorized by the Board of Directors, nor were the transferees’ signatures obtained.

Although the transfer of shares was recorded with a Board Resolution, dated April 3, 2021, Respondent No. 5 (the informant) was not notified of the meeting, nor were the transferees informed. In collusion with C.A., Asit Baron Paul, the accused parties falsified the share transfer, and forged documents were submitted, which are now part of the records at the Register of Companies.. In regard to the loan amount, being levied on the Kanika Buildcon (which is operated by Respondent No. 5) the Respondent submits that before the partition, both the petitioners and Respondent No. 5 (the informant) jointly handled the company and financially supported each other. As part of this arrangement, Kanika Buildcon managed by Respondent No. 5, took a loan/advance of Rs. 9,13,00,000/- from Mandyati Dealcom, owned by the accused (petitioners), between September, 2010 and April, 2017, which was mostly repaid.

However, after the family partition, Mandyati Dealcom unexpectedly demanded Rs. 18,06,20,352/- (eighteen crores, six lakhs, twenty thousand, three hundred and fifty-two), while only Rs. 1,22,50,000/- remained outstanding against the original loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000/-. Later, Respondent No. 5 discovered that Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a false case in the Company Court, claiming that, as a Director of Kanika Buildcon, he had written a letter to Sushil Bajaj (Respondent No. 5/informant), the then Director of Mandyati Dealcom, accepting a loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- with interest. For the same, an application was filed under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Petitioners in December, 2022, claiming an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- which include principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and the interest of 17,15,01,400/- till 31.07.2022. Date of default for the same was mentioned as August 2, 2021. In the application under Section 7 of IBC, the Appellant claimed that conditions of loans were set out in writing in letter, dated September 20, 2010, written by Director of the Corporate Debtor Company to the Financial Creditor. The matter was first adjudicated by NCLT, Kolkata Bench and later went in appeal to NCLAT New Delhi.