O P Goel vs Appelate Authority For ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 5232 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2009

+      W.P.(C) 13116/2009

O P GOEL                                                        ..... Petitioner

                      - versus -


APPELATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL
RECONSTRUCTION OF NEW DELHI AND ORS    ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Nagesh with Mr. Hemant Sharma, Advocates

For the Respondent : Mr. Randhir Kumar with Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates for respondent No.2 Mr. Arvind Minocha with Mr. Ramesh Saboo, Advocates for respondent No.3 CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3 are represented by

counsel. The respondent No.1 is the Appellate Authority for Industrial and

Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) and is only a proforma party. The

learned counsel for the parties agree that this matter can be disposed of at the

admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2009 passed by

the AAIFR in M.A. No. 343/2009 in Appeal No. 45/2008. By virtue of the

impugned order the said M.A. 343/2009, which was for recalling of the

order dated 01.09.2009, was dismissed by the AAIFR on the ground that

they had no authority to review their own order. The petitioner had sought

recall of the order dated 01.09.2009 passed by the AAIFR in the appeal

before it, being aggrieved by the direction that the petitioner would be

proceeded ex parte on account of non-appearance of the petitioner on that

date.

3. After having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the

petitioner cannot be debarred from taking further part in the appeal pending

before the AAIFR. The order passed on 01.09.2009, inter alia, directing that

the petitioner be proceeded against ex parte, would only have effect till the

petitioner appears on a subsequent date and from that subsequent date the

petitioner would be fully entitled to participate in the proceedings as well as

to be heard. We are informed that nothing transpired between 01.09.2009

till date, apart from the fact that Kotak Mahindra Bank filed its report on

16.11.2009. By that date we had passed the order dated 13.11.2009

permitting the petitioner to participate in the appeal, however, the learned

counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner was not permitted to

seek documents or file a response to the said report. He was merely allowed

to be present in the proceedings.

4. To clarify the matter, we direct that the petitioner shall continue to be

treated as a party and would be entitled to participate fully in the

proceedings and the petitioner would have the right to be heard as also to file

any documents which other similarly placed parties may have been

permitted to file.

5. We also make it clear that the parties have assured this Court that they

will not cause any uncalled for delay in the proceedings before the AAIFR.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of in view of the aforesaid

directions.

Dasti.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J DECEMBER 15, 2009 srb