Delhi High Court
CO.PET./206/2010 of ALKA EXIM PVT. LTD. Vs M/S CREST EXPORT PVT LTD on 24 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010655092010 + CO.PET. 206/2010 & CO.APPL. 532/2012, CO.APPL. 970/2016, OLR 369/2015, OLR 17/2016, OLR 16/2017 ALKA EXIM PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: versus M/S CREST EXPORT PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jeevesh Mehta, Standing
$~C-4
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010655092010
+
CO.PET. 206/2010 & CO.APPL. 532/2012, CO.APPL. 970/2016, OLR 369/2015, OLR 17/2016, OLR 16/2017
ALKA EXIM PVT. LTD.
.....Petitioner
Through:
versus
M/S CREST EXPORT PVT LTD
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Jeevesh Mehta, Standing Counsel
for OL.
Mr. Vikram Sachdeva, Mr. Vikas
Sachdeva, Ex-directors (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
24.09.2026
CO.APPL. 540/2024
1. This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator (‘OL’) seeking liquidation expenses for the period of 2013 to 2019 to be paid by the Ex-Directors.
2. Mr. Vikram Sachdeva and Mr. Vikas Sachdeva, Ex-directors are present through VC. They point out that the appeal, being, CO. APP. 16/2014 had been filed by Mr. Vikas Sachdeva, Ex-Director of M/S Crest Export Pvt. Ltd. (‘CEPL’), which had been ordered to be wound up by order dated 11th December 2013 (impugned order therein) passed by the Company Court in a petition filed on behalf of Alka Exim Pvt. Ltd. (‘AEPL’) under
Section 433 (e) and (f) of Companies Act, 1956 regarding non-payment of Rs.2,55,11,173/-.
3. The Division Bench, while passing the order on 29th July 2019, noted that AEPL had not accounted for certain RTGS payments made to it by CEPL and considering that AEPL had not reverted back to the Court with any instructions and had gone unrepresented, the Division Bench found that there was no contest to the discrepancy which had been raised in the statement of account, as submitted by AEPL. Accordingly, impugned order was set aside and the Company Petition was restored back to the file for fresh disposal by the Company Court.
4. In view of the above, the Ex-Directors have raised a plea that the winding up orders were not passed at their behest, but at the behest of the AEPL, who later on did not press the petition and the matter was then remanded back.
5. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the question of Ex-Director paying liquidation expenses will not arise, considering the winding up order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court.
6. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. Liberty is given to OL to recover the money from petitioner/AEPL. CO.APPL. 512/2024
1. Ex-Directors seek to withdraw this application in order to assert a closure to the matter.
2. Accordingly, application is dismissed as withdrawn. CO.PET. 206/2010
1. In view of the above, petition is disposed of. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.
2. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/ak/sp