Delhi High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Ashwini Mehra Resolution ... on 30 June, 2020
#2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered On: 30.06.2020
LPA 152/2020 & CM APPL.12203/2020 (Stay)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD .....Appellant
versus
ASHWINI MEHRA RESOLUTION
PROFESSIONAL OF PUNJ LLOYD & ORS. ......Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. V.N. Koura, Ms. Mona Aneja and Mr.
Anupam Roy, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Kartik Nayar, Ms. Anindita Roychowdhury, Mr.
Piyush Mishra, Ms. Vatsala Rai and Mr. Raghav
Chadha, Advocates for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (via Video Conferencing)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, instituted on behalf of the
appellant/Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), assails the judgment
and order dated 17.04.2020 rendered by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2966/2020 titled as 'Ashwini
Mehra vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.', whereby it was
observed as follows:-
"8. In the circumstances, Mr. Nayar only seeks a
limited amnesty for his client by way of a restraint
against the IOCL, from encashing the aforesaid three
bank guarantees, till expiry of one week from lifting
of the lockdown, imposed by the Central Government,
which is presently in force till 3 May, 2020.
9. On this submission being put to him, Mr. Koura,
even while expressing his difficulty in conceding
thereto, submits that even if this Court is inclined to
grant in such limited relief to the petitioner, it ought to
be clarified that such relief is granted to the petitioner
only in view of the stalemate, with respect to the
petitioner's inability to move the NCLT at present,
and should not be treated as an expression of opinion,
even tentative, regarding the merits of the case or the
entitlement, of the petitioner, to any injunction against
invocation or encashment of the bank guarantees as
sought.
10. The submission appears, to me, to be eminently
reasonable.
11. Mr. Nayar, too, does not object thereto.
12. In this view of the matter, I do not think it is
necessary to keep this writ petition pending any
further before this Court. Accordingly, this writ
petition is disposed of by granting limited relief, to the
petitioner, to the extent that, till the expiry of period
of one week from the lifting of the lockdown,
imposed by the Central Government, consequent to n-
COVID-2019 pandemic, the IOCL shall remain
injuncted from encashing/invoking the aforesaid three
bank guarantees, i.e. Bank Guarantee No.
0346415BG0000105 dated 9th December, 2015 for an
amount of Rs.14,73,82,051/- issued by Respondent
No.2, Bank Guarantee No. 160127IBGA00005 dated
25th February, 2016 for an amount of
Rs.29,47,64,102/- and Bank Guarantee
No.160127IBGA00014 dated 19th April, 2016 issued
by Respondent No. 3 for an amount of
Rs.49,44,58,134/-, till the expiry of one week from the
lifting of the lockdown imposed by the Central
Government, which is presently in force till 3rd May,
2020.
13. It is made absolutely clear that this Court has not
entered into the merits of the matter, though this Court
has recorded the submissions of Mr. Nayar, and that
no observation in this order should be treated as a
reflection, even prima facie, regarding the merits of
the case or the entitlement of the petitioner, to any
injunction against invocation or encashment of the
bank guarantees in question."
2. As recorded in a previous order sheet dated 19.06.2020, it is an
admitted position that consequent upon the lifting of the lockdown, the
Resolution Professional/respondent Mr. Ashwini Mehra has instituted
an appropriate proceeding before the learned National Company Law
Tribunal (for short 'NCLT') qua the dispute that constituted the
subject matter of the subject writ petition.
3. It is further an admitted position that, the proceedings instituted
on behalf of the Resolution Professional/respondent are pending
adjudication before the learned NCLT, wherein the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., the appellant herein, is also appearing.
4. In the circumstances, the limited amnesty granted to the
Resolution Professional/respondent by way of an order of restraint
against the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the appellant, from
encashing the subject bank guarantees, has worked itself out pursuant
to the lifting of the lockdown and the pendency of the proceeding
before the learned NCLT.
5. In view of the forgoing, the present appeal instituted on behalf
of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., has been rendered infructuous.
6. However, it is made clear that we have not made any
observation, even prima facie, regarding the merits of the case or the
entitlement of the Resolution Professional/respondent to any
injunction against the invocation or encashment of the subject bank
guarantees in the present lis.
7. No further directions are called for.
8. With the above directions, the appeal is dismissed as having
become infructuous and disposed of accordingly. The pending
application also stands disposed of.
9. A copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties, electronically and also be uploaded
on the website of this Court forthwith.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH
(JUDGE)
JUNE 30, 2020
dn/as
