M/s Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited ARCIL on 30 October 2026

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to order dated 17.09.2026 whereby the application bearing I.A. No.260/2026 filed by the appellant was ordered to be dismissed. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.09.2026 is reproduced as under:

**So far as I.A. No.260/2026 is concerned, the same deserves to be allowed to the limited extent necessary for giving effect to the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Hon'ble DRAT. Mr. Arupes Ghosh, Vice President, ARCIL, who Defendant has already appeared and been cross-examined by No.6 in relation to the statements of account, cross-examination shall be produced by the Applicant before this Tribunal for by Defendant No.7 on the date fixed for the said purpose. No other or fresh witness shall be summoned pursuant to I.A. No.146/2026. Consequently, I.A. No.260/2026 no. 146/2026 is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, I.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms, and the objection/reply filed by Defendant No.7 thereto stands disposed of accordingly.**

2. Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the appellant stated and argued that the appellant filed an application bearing I.A. No.820/2025 for seeking permission to the appellant being the defendant no.7 to cross-examine the witnesses/officials of the respondent who have signed/verified the pleadings and placed the necessary documents on record. DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 07.11.2025 has dismissed the said application by observing that the said application was found to be frivolous and intended only to delay final adjudication of the matter involving substantial funds. The appellant being aggrieved filed the Misc. Appeal bearing 30/2026 before this Tribunal which was decided vide order dated 20.04.2026. This Tribunal in the order dated 20.04.2026 has allowed the appellant to cross-examine the witness. The relevant portion of the order dated 20.04.2026 is reproduced as under:

**The perusal of the order dated 07.11.2025 reflects that application (I.A. No.820/2025) was dismissed with the imposition of the cost of Rs.50,000/- . After considering all facts and rival contentions and arguments of both the parties, the appellant being defendant no.7 before DRT is permitted to cross-examine the witness as referred herein above in the interest of justice. However, it is made clear that the defendant no.7 shall cross-examine the witness on the date which is so fixed by the DRT and the respondent in the present appeal is also directed to call the said witness before the DRT to facilitate cross-examination of the said witness on behalf of defendant no.7. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the defendant no.7 to cross-examine the said witness unless and until so permitted by DRT.**

3. The appellant subsequent to passing of the order dated 20.04.2026 filed another interim application bearing I.A. No.146/2026 whereby sought the direction to the respondent to furnish the names and address of the officials who have signed the statement of accounts dated 31.03.2015, 12.02.2024 and 24.05.2024. In addition the prayer was also made to summon R.K. Arora, General Manager from Bank of Baroda. Thereafter the respondent filed affidavit which is placed at page 48 in the appeal paper book as Annexure A-6 wherein they disclosed the name of three persons who have signed the statement of accounts as detailed hereinabove and their names were Keyur Morparia, Amit Limaye and Mr. Arupesh Ghosh. It was also stated in the affidavit that Keyur Morparia and Amit Limaye, have already left the services of the respondent (at that time represented by Bank of Baroda).

4. Thereafter DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 19.05.2026 has directed the respondents to furnish the present addresses of the witnesses within 10 days either of their current place of employment or the home addresses available in the official records of the respondent. The respondent subsequent passing of the order dated 19.05.2026 by DRT-III, Delhi, the filed another application bearing M.A. no.60/2026 for clarification of the order dated 20.04.2026 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal by observing that the order dated 20.04.2026 did not require any clarification.

5. The respondent subsequent to the order dated 17.07.2026 filed application bearing I.A. No.260/2026 with the prayer to take on record the details of the competent officer of the respondent who was well acquainted with the entries contained in the statements of account filed by the respondent and also for cross-examination the said witness by the appellant/defendant no.7. The prayer was also sought to exempt the respondent from filing the details of ex-employees who are no longer available in the employment of the respondent. The said application was contested by the appellant by filing the reply.

6. DRT-III, Delhi vide impugned order dated 17.09.2026 has disposed of the application bearing I.A. No.260/2026. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.09.2026 filed the present appeal.

7. Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the appellant stated that this Tribunal vide order dated 20.04.2026 has allowed the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses who prepared the statement of accounts dated 31.03.2015, 12.02.2024 and 24.05.2024 but the respondent has only produced the one witness which was mentioned in the affidavit annexed at page 48 as Annexure-A6 i.e. Arupesh Ghosh. It is further argued that the respondent did not produce all the witnesses as detailed in the affidavit i.e. Keyur Morparia, Amit Limaye and Mr. Arupesh Ghosh. In the light of these submissions, Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate prayed and argued be allowed to cross-examine all the three witnesses as detailed hereinabove.

8. Sh. Sudheer Makkar, Senior Advocate for the respondent argued that this Tribunal vide order dated 20.04.2026 has permitted only one witness for cross-examination by the appellant and the appellant has misread the order dated 20.04.2026 by stating that this Tribunal has allowed all the three witnesses for cross-examination by the appellant being the defendant no.7. The respondent is ready to produce the witness Arupesh Ghosh for cross-examination by the appellant being the defendant no.7 as it has already been cross-examined on behalf of the defendant no.6. It is further stated that the two witnesses are not available as they have already left the employment of the respondent. He argued that the present appeal be dismissed.

9. It is reflecting that the defendant no.6 in Original Application was given opportunity to cross-examine one witness i.e. Arupesh Ghosh as mentioned in the affidavit. The other two witnesses as detailed in the affidavit are not available with the respondent. The appellant was to cross-examine these witnesses only for the purpose to examine the veracity of statement of accounts dated 31.03.2015, 12.02.2024 and 24.05.2024. The appellant shall be having opportunity to cross-examine the relevant witness in respect of the statement of accounts dated 31.03.2015, 12.02.2024 and 24.05.2024 i.e. the witness Arupesh Ghosh. No useful purpose would be served by calling the other two witnesses for the same fact who have already left the services of the respondent.

10. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Hence appeal is dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to produce Arupesh Ghosh on behalf of the appellant being the defendant no.7 as and when directed by the DRT-III, Delhi.

SD/- \_\_\_\_\_ **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-v\$