Delhi High Court
Ifci Ltd. vs Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. (Through ... on 20 April, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.2282/2011 & CM No. 4874/2011
% Date of Decision: 20.04.2011
IFCI Ltd. ...... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rahul Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. (Through Official ...... Respondents
Liquidator) & Anr.
Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Amit Dhupar and Mr. Dhrupad Das,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd March, 2011
passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the Misc. Appeal
No. 352-353/2010 titled as IFCI Limited Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Limited
whereby Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal directed the parties to
appear before Debts Recovery Tribunal on 30th March, 2011 for
adjudication of disputes between them and also directed the Tribunal to
expedite the case and till then ordered status quo.
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had directed the Debts
Recovery Tribunal to decide whether to continue the interim order or
not and also to decide the question of limitation and maintainability of
the application.
The writ petition was filed against the said order of the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal and it was taken up for hearing on 5th
April, 2011 and thereafter on 7th April, 2011. The proceedings pending
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were, however, not stayed though the
petitioner had prayed for stay of operation of order dated 22nd March,
2011 and stay of proceedings.
On 7th April, 2011, this Court was intimated that on 30th March,
2011, on which date the parties were directed to appear before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal, at the instance of the petitioner, the matter
had been adjourned to 11th April, 2011.
On 7th April, 2011, the counsel for the petitioner on instructions
had stated that the matter shall be argued before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal on 11th April, 2011. The counsel for the respondent had also
not objected to appear on 11th April, 2011 before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal and argue the matter in terms of the order of the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
In the circumstances, this Court had directed the Debts Recovery
Tribunal to hear the arguments on the pleas and contentions between
the parties, which are pending adjudication before Debt Recovery
Tribunal in view of the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal. This Court had had also directed that the Debts Recovery
Tribunal will hear the matter expeditiously and if the arguments are not
concluded on 11th April, 2011, the arguments be heard on day to day
basis, if convenient, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the parties have contended that matter was
argued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 11th April, 2011, 13th
April, 2011, 15th April, 2011, 18th April, 2011 and 19th April, 2011. The
learned counsel also contends that the matter is being heard on day to
day basis according to the convenience of the learned Debts Recovery
Tribunal.
Since the matter is being heard expeditiously by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 7th
April, 2011 and the petitioner and the respondent have argued the
matter, no further orders are required in the present facts and
circumstances and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order
dated 7th April, 2011 passed by this Court, as the learned counsel for
the petitioner, on instructions, had stated that the matter shall be
argued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the learned counsel for
the respondent also did not have any objection to argue the matter
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in respect of disputes between the
petitioner and the Respondent.
Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order
dated 7th April, 2011 as the said order is being implemented and as no
further orders are required. All the pending applications are also
disposed of.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
April 20, 2011 SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
'rs'
