Anything Skool Ltd. (Formerly Known as Liberty Innovative Outfits Ltd.) Vs Liberty Footwear Company — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anything Skool Ltd. (Formerly Known as Liberty Innovative Outfits Ltd.) Vs Liberty Footwear Company — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals disposed of; appellants permitted, if the dispute remains unresolved, to seek revival of the appeals by an appropriate application without re-filing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the two appeals, instituted around July 2020 and never argued on notice owing to repeated adjournments for attempted settlement and mediation, should be kept pending any further or be disposed of.

Court's answer

The Court declined to keep the appeals pending on its Board any further and disposed of both appeals, the appellants not having been in a position to argue on notice of the appeal for five years.

Ratio / Principle

The Court refused to keep the appeal pending indefinitely waiting for the parties to settle their disputes, holding that yet another adjournment for mediation would make a mockery of the Court's procedure.

Key takeaways

The disposal of the appeals does not inhibit or preclude the parties from arriving at an amicable resolution of their dispute.ratio¶¶87
In order to do complete justice, the appellants are permitted, in the event the dispute is not resolved, to seek revival of these appeals by moving an appropriate application, without having to re-file the appeals.ratio¶¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAO(OS)(COMM) 79/2020 (Anything Skool Ltd., formerly Liberty Innovative Outfits Ltd.) and FAO(OS)(COMM) 80/2020 (Liberty Fashion Outfit), both versus Liberty Footwear Company: first appeals from interim orders pending since mid-2020, in which notice was never issued because the matters were repeatedly adjourned at the parties' instance for settlement - through a six-member committee of family elders (July 2020), referral to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre with Ms. Veena Ralli, Advocate, as mediator (December 2020), a direction for the personal presence of five family members (February 2022), serial adjournments through 2023-2025, and the September 2025 Special Mediation Drive ('For the Nation'), from which the matter was returned because the appellant's counsel appeared late. On 08.09.2025, allowing one further attempt to pass unheeded, a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. (order authored by C. Hari Shankar, J.) held that keeping the appeal pending forever awaiting settlement would be a mockery of the Court's procedure, and disposed of both appeals, recording that the appellants had not been in a position to argue on notice for five years. The Court expressly preserved the parties' freedom to settle amicably notwithstanding the disposal, and, in order to do complete justice, permitted the appellants, should the dispute remain unresolved, to seek revival of the appeals by an appropriate application without re-filing them.

$~3 & 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 79/2020, CM APPL. 14916/2020 & CM APPL. 14917/2020

ANYTHING SKOOL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LIBERTY INNOVATIVE OUTFITS LTD.) .....Appellant Through: Ms. Twinkle Kataria, Adv. Ms. Raj Latha Kotni, Ms. Swagita Pandey and Ms. Ananya Singh, Advs.

versus

LIBERTY FOOTWEAR COMPANY .....Respondent Through:

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 80/2020, CM APPL. 14922/2020 & CM APPL. 14923/2020

LIBERTY FASHION OUTFIT .....Appellant Through: Ms. Twinkle Kataria, Adv. Ms. Raj Latha Kotni, Ms. Swagita Pandey and Ms. Ananya Singh, Advs.

versus

LIBERTY FOOTWEAR COMPANY .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER(ORAL)

% 08.09.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

1. Ms. Twinkle Kataria, learned Counsel for the appellant once again seeks opportunity for attempting at an amicable resolution.

2. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the following orders of

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS)(COMM) 79/2020 and other connected matter Signing Date:16.09.2025 18:37:51

Page 1 of 6

this case which would highlight how the matters in these cases have proceeded from time to time:

“ Order dated 14 July 2020

We have heard the counsel for the appellants in both the appeals at length as well as the response of the counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice.

Applying the principles of law relating to scope of interference in appeal against interim orders, till now no illegality is found in the impugned order. However considering that the parties are members of a family and also partners, we have also tried to persuade the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement not only with respect to the disputes subject matter of the present appeals but also with respect to other lurking issues if any between the parties, so that the profitable business of the family is not killed by the inter se disputes.

The counsel for the appellants has fairly stated that he will obtain instructions.

List on 23^rd July, 2020.

If no settlement is arrived at, the counsels will have an opportunity to address further.

Order dated 23 July 2020

The counsel for the appellants in both the appeals states that pursuant to the order dated 14^th July, 2020, the members of the family to which the parties belong, have constituted a Committee of six elder members of the family, to resolve all the disputes and the first meeting of the Committee is scheduled on 8^th August, 2020.

Adjournment to enable the parties to arrive at a settlement is sought.

The counsel for the respondent in both the appeals confirms that there has been a positive development.

List for further hearing, if no settlement is arrived at, on 15 September, 2020.

The parties are cautioned to make efforts during the

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS)(COMM) 79/2020 and other connected matter Signing Date:16.09.2025 18:37:51

Page 2 of 6

interregnum to settle and for this reason only long date has been given. If no settlement is arrived at, no further adjournment shall be granted.

Order dated 9 December 2020

The counsel for the appellants states that the mediation attempted by the parties on their own has not worked and the appellants are now willing for mediation through the Mediation Centre of this Court.

The counsel for the respondents states that though the respondents had shown their willingness but the appellants did not come forward. Else, the counsel for the respondents has no objection.

The parties are referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and to appear before the Mediation Centre, whether virtually/physically, as may be deemed fit by the Mediation Centre, on 18^th December, 2020 at 12:00 PM.

The Mediation Centre is requested to assign the matter to Ms. Veena Ralli, Advocate, Mediator having experience of settling business disputes among family members.

List for hearing, if the mediation is not successful, on 23rd February, 2021.

Order dated 11 February 2022

The present matters have been taken up for hearing by way of Video Conferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

With a view to exploring the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement of all outstanding issues within the Liberty family, we deem it appropriate to require Mr. Adarsh Gupta s/o late Mr. P.D. Gupta, Mr. Raman Bansal s/o late Mr. R.K. Bansal, Mr. Vivek Bansal s/o late Mr. R.K. Bansal, Mr. Harish Gupta s/o late Mr. D.P. Gupta and Mr. Dheeraj Gupta s/o Mr. Harish Gupta, to remain present in-person before this court, on the next date of hearing.

List on 22.03.2022.

Order dated 12 July 2022

The learned counsels appearing for the parties state that the parties are unable to resolve the disputes amicably.

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS)(COMM) 79/2020 and other connected matter Signing Date:16.09.2025 18:37:51

Page 3 of 6

Accordingly, the appeals would have to be heard on merits.

List on 20.09.2022.

Order dated 21 March 2023

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent would like to resolve the matter amicably. He states that the respondent would take steps to initiate the process of resolution of the dispute.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 25th May, 2023.

Order dated 22 September 2023

Learned counsel for the respondent apprises the Court that parties are considering avenues of settlement. A request is accordingly made for these matters being adjourned today.

Acceding to the same, let both appeals be called again on 14.12.2023.

Order dated 14 December 2023

Learned counsels for parties apprise the Court that they are exploring the possibility of a settlement. A joint request is consequently made for these appeals being adjourned today.

Accordingly, re-notify for 20.03.2024.

Order dated 21 January 2025

The learned counsels for the parties submit that parties are trying to amicably resolve their disputes and request for an adjournment.

Subject to orders of Hon‟ble the Acting Chief Justice, list before another Bench of which one of us, Navin Chawla, J is not a member, on 23rd April, 2025.

Order dated 23 April 2025

Ms. Twinkle Kataria, who appears for the appellants and submits that attempts of an amicable resolution of the disputes are still underway.

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS)(COMM) 79/2020 and other connected matter Signing Date:16.09.2025 18:37:51

Page 4 of 6

Accordingly, re-notify on 2 September 2025.

Order dated 11 August 2025

For referral to the Special Mediation Drive- Mediation „For the Nation‟

Ld. counsel for the appellant gave her appearance later than ld. counsel for the respondent, therefore the matter could not be sent to mediation. Hence the matter is returned.

Order dated 2 September 2025.

Ms. Raj Latha Kotni, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the parties are exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement.

We have seen the order-sheets in this case. On the ground that the parties are exploring settlement possibilities, this Court has not even been able to issue notice in this appeal for the past 5 years. The parties each time reach the brink of settlement and then state that they do not wish to settle.

We are not inclined to keep this appeal pending like this forever, waiting for the parties to settle their disputes. We have informed learned Counsel for the appellants that, in the event that the parties still want to resolve their disputes, we would be inclined to dispose of the appeal with liberty to the appellants to re-file the appeal, in case the disputes are not settled.

Re-notify on 8 September 2025.”

3. Owing to the repeated attempts at mediation and the failure of those attempts, this Court has, for over five years since the appeal was instituted, not been in a position to issue notice in the appeal.

4. It would be a mockery of the procedure of this Court if this appeal is adjourned yet again awaiting the possibility of mediation.

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS)(COMM) 79/2020 and other connected matter Signing Date:16.09.2025 18:37:51

Page 5 of 6

5. Needless to say, moreover, the order passed today would not in any way inhibit the parties from amicably resolving the disputes between them, if they are so minded.

6. We, therefore, are not inclined to keep these appeals pending on the Board of this Court any further. The appeals are accordingly disposed of as the appellants have not been in a position to argue on notice of the appeal for five years as on date.

7. Needless to say, the disposal of these appeals would not inhibit the parties from arriving at an amicable resolution of the dispute.

8. In order to do complete justice, we also permit the appellants, in the event that the dispute is not resolved, to seek revival of these appeals by moving an appropriate application without having to re-file the appeals all over again.

9. Both the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

SEPTEMBER 8, 2025/ ng

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS)(COMM) 79/2020 and other connected matter Signing Date:16.09.2025 18:37:51

Page 6 of 6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
An interim order under appeal in these FAOs; as at 14 July 2020 the Court had applied scope-of-interference principles and found no illegality in it. Its forum and date are not identified anywhere in this judgment.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
Order dated 14 July 2020: initial appellate hearing; principles on scope of interference with interim orders applied; no illegality found in the impugned order; parties (family members and partners) pressed towards an amicable settlement covering all lurking issues.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
Order dated 23 July 2020: family constituted a committee of six elder members to resolve all disputes, first meeting fixed for 8 August 2020; adjournment for settlement sought and granted.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Order dated 9 December 2020: the parties' own mediation having failed, they were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (appearance fixed 18 December 2020), with a request that the matter be assigned to Ms. Veena Ralli, Advocate, as mediator.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Order dated 11 February 2022: hearings by video conference due to COVID-19; five named family members (Adarsh Gupta, Raman Bansal, Vivek Bansal, Harish Gupta, Dheeraj Gupta) directed to attend in person on the next date to explore settlement.¶¶45
Prior proceeding
Order dated 12 July 2022: counsels stated the parties were unable to resolve amicably; appeals declared to be heard on merits.¶¶48
Prior proceeding
Order dated 21 March 2023: respondent expressed desire to resolve amicably and to initiate the process; adjourned to 25 May 2023.¶¶55
Prior proceeding
Order dated 22 September 2023: parties said to be considering avenues of settlement; both appeals called again on 14.12.2023.¶¶58
Prior proceeding
Order dated 14 December 2023: joint report of settlement exploration; re-notified for 20.03.2024.¶¶61
Prior proceeding
Order dated 21 January 2025: further adjournment sought for amicable resolution; subject to orders of the Acting Chief Justice, matter listed before another Bench (of which Navin Chawla, J was not a member) on 23 April 2025.¶¶65
Prior proceeding
Order dated 23 April 2025: appellant's counsel submitted amicable-resolution attempts were still underway; re-notified for 2 September 2025.¶¶67
Prior proceeding
Order dated 11 August 2025: matter returned from the Special Mediation Drive - Mediation 'For the Nation' because the appellant's counsel appeared later than the respondent's counsel, so it could not be sent to mediation.¶¶74
Prior proceeding
Order dated 2 September 2025: Court observed that, on settlement-exploration grounds, notice had not issued in the appeal for five years; informed counsel it would be inclined to dispose of the appeal with liberty to re-file if disputes were unresolved; re-notified for 8 September 2025.¶¶77