Full Text
Translation output
$-24 &25 / HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2919/2011
SILICON VALLEY INFOTBCH Petitioner
Through: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr
Pawan Upadhyay, Mr Ashok K. Shukla & Ms Anisha Upadhyay, Advs.
W.P.(C) 2919/2011
SILICON VALLEY INFOTBCH Petitioner
Through: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr
Pawan Upadhyay, Mr Ashok K. Shukla & Ms Anisha Upadhyay, Advs.
VERSUS
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION ' LTD Respondent
Through: Mr Vijay Kumar, Adv. with Mr R.K.
Mittal, G.M. (Law) & Mr A.P.S. Manocha, DGM (Law).
-I- W.P.(C) 2921/2011 ATN INTERNATIONAL LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr
Pawan Upadhyay, Mr Ashok K. Shukla & Ms Anisha Upadhyay, Advs.
Through: Mr Vijay Kumar, Adv. with Mr R.K.
Mittal, G.M. (Law) & Mr A.P.S. Manocha, DGM (Law).
-I- W.P.(C) 2921/2011 ATN INTERNATIONAL LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr
Pawan Upadhyay, Mr Ashok K. Shukla & Ms Anisha Upadhyay, Advs.
VERSUS
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION ETD Respondent
Through: Mr Vijay Kumar, Adv. with Mr R.K.
Mittal, G.M. (Eaw) & Mr A.P.S. Manocha, DGM (Eaw).
Through: Mr Vijay Kumar, Adv. with Mr R.K.
Mittal, G.M. (Eaw) & Mr A.P.S. Manocha, DGM (Eaw).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
11.04.2013 After some arguments, Mr Nandrajog, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, says that he does not wish to press the captioned writ petitions. He, however, says that he would like to make another attempt
11.04.2013 After some arguments, Mr Nandrajog, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, says that he does not wish to press the captioned writ petitions. He, however, says that he would like to make another attempt
W.P.(C) 2919/2011 &2921/2011 . Page 1of2
2013:DHC:7264 at settling the matter with the respondent. For this purpose, he says that the petitioners wish to approach the respondent with an improved proposal.
The writ petitions are disposed of as not pressed. The respondent shall, however, not take precipitative action for another four weeks subject to the following.
The petitioner shall be free to submit an improved proposal within four weeks from today. In ease the respondent finds that the improved proposal, if any, submitted by the petitioners, is not viable, the decision with
^ regard to the same will be communicated to the petitioner. This, however, will not give rise to any further proceedings to challenge the said decision.
The petitioners, however, will be at liberty to take recourse to whatever remedies are available to them under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
In ease of rejection of any fresh proposal made, the sum of Rs. 3 crores, which was deposited by the petitioners with the respondent during the pendency of these proceedings, will be depositedby the respondent with the Recovery Officer in the DRT, who will pass appropriate order(s) in that behalf after hearing both sides.
Counsels for both parties have agreed to the aforesaid directions, which have been put in place.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe court master.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J APRIL 11,2013 kk
2013:DHC:7264 at settling the matter with the respondent. For this purpose, he says that the petitioners wish to approach the respondent with an improved proposal.
The writ petitions are disposed of as not pressed. The respondent shall, however, not take precipitative action for another four weeks subject to the following.
The petitioner shall be free to submit an improved proposal within four weeks from today. In ease the respondent finds that the improved proposal, if any, submitted by the petitioners, is not viable, the decision with
^ regard to the same will be communicated to the petitioner. This, however, will not give rise to any further proceedings to challenge the said decision.
The petitioners, however, will be at liberty to take recourse to whatever remedies are available to them under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
In ease of rejection of any fresh proposal made, the sum of Rs. 3 crores, which was deposited by the petitioners with the respondent during the pendency of these proceedings, will be depositedby the respondent with the Recovery Officer in the DRT, who will pass appropriate order(s) in that behalf after hearing both sides.
Counsels for both parties have agreed to the aforesaid directions, which have been put in place.
Dasti under the signatures ofthe court master.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J APRIL 11,2013 kk
W.P.(C) 2919/2011 &2921/2011 Page 2 of2
2013:DHC:7264
2013:DHC:7264
JUDGMENT