Asset Reconstruction Company ... vs The Official Liquidator, High ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7807 Bom

                                        1/3                          2.IAL-9359-2021.doc




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                   INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.9359 OF 2021
                                     IN
                      COMPANY PETITION NO.189 OF 2008
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.         ....Applicant/Petitioner
          V/s.
Horizon Flora India Limited                       ....Respondent
                                   ----
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Vinodini Srinivasan,
Mr. Vinod Kothari and Ms. Sonal Sanap i/b. M/s. Apex Law Partners
for applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Bipin J. Joshi for respondent.
                                   ----
                                    CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 11th JUNE 2021

P.C. :

1 The interim application has been moved by petitioner for

extension of time mandated by an order dated 19 th January 2021 passed by

this Court directing parties to take steps to expedite hearing in the Original

Application No.58 of 2006 pending before the DRT, Pune and endeavor to

dispose of the matter before 30th April 2021.

2 Mr. Dhond stated that respondent is trying to stall the

expeditious disposal of the original application. Mr. Joshi vehemently denied

and stated that the statement of Senior Counsel is not correct and

respondent also is keen on finishing of the matter. Mr. Joshi agreed that the

application, which was filed by respondent before the DRT for cross

examining certain officers of Dena Bank and ARCIL, has been dismissed by

Gauri Gaekwad

2/3 2.IAL-9359-2021.doc

DRT on or about 19th April 2021. Mr. Joshi states that an appeal against that

order has been filed before DRAT which is pending and at the same time,

DRAT has not given any stay of the proceedings pending before DRT.

Mr. Joshi states that even a filing number has not been given by DRAT

because the Section Officer there has some personal problems.

3 Therefore, in my view, there is no impediment in DRT going

ahead with the hearing, concluding the hearing and delivering its judgment.

Certainly, it will be open for respondent, incase DRT hold against

respondent, to raise all grounds available in law if respondent choose to file

an appeal in DRAT against the order and judgment of DRT. I will hasten to

clarify, I am not making any observations on the merit of the matter or to

what extent the appeal can be filed etc. All rights of respondent will be

available as permissible in law.

4 Mr. Joshi in fairness stated that on the next date, which is

14th June 2021, respondent will co-operate and go on with the matter before

DRT and no adjournment will be sought. Mr. Dhond states that even

applicant will not seek any adjournment and both parties will complete the

arguments as far as possible on 14th June 2021 and if it is inconclusive, then

on the next date to be given by DRT. Both counsel also state that both

parties have already filed written submissions with DRT.

5 DRT is directed to endeavor to conclude the hearing by

19th June 2021 and deliver its judgment by 15th July 2021.

Gauri Gaekwad





                                          3/3                            2.IAL-9359-2021.doc




6                Interim application accordingly stands disposed.



                                                      (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Gauri Gaekwad