Full Text
MIS. AGARPARA COMPANY LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. (Mr.) Abhishek M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Mr. Akhil Sibal, Advs.
Through: Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. C. Mukund & Ms. Indrani Mukhe:rjee, Advs. for ACL.
Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, Adv. for Mr. Ghanshyam Sarda.
HON'BLE MS. WSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
30.01.2013 On hearing learned counsels for the parties as also the counsels for some of the parties before the BIFR which are affected but not impleaded as respondents herein it is agreed that the writ petition and the interim application be disposed ofwith the following directions:
ORDER
1. A peculiar position has been created by reason of the fact that there is no coram of the AAIFR with the result that the AAIFR is not functioning. This has necessitated filing of the present writ petition as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. WP (C) No.550/2013 Page I of[2]."~ -- '~,, ------·--!.. ·,•:; 2013:DHC:7801-DB v ii. Appeal No.287/2010 is pending before AAIFR in which there are interim orders of status quo qua parties passed on 19.11.201 0, which are still continuing. The appeal is listed on 11.3.2013. Till this appeal/interim application is decided, the respondents in pursuance of the impugned order of the BIFR dated 8.11.2012 will not further circulate the DRS nor will the BIFR do so.
111. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before AAIFR in accordance with law. We may note that the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the appeal would be barred by time which is denied by learned counsel for the petitioner, an aspect to be examined by the AAIFR.
IV. There is a grievance of some of the affected parties before the BIFR that they have not been impleaded as respondents in the present proceedings and that they should have been so impleaded. The petitioner to take necessary steps that when the appeal is filed before the AAIFR all affected parties are impleaded as respondents. v. We may note that there is a dispute as to who ought to represent the petitioner Company. The petition and the application accordingly stand disposed of JANUARY 30, 2013 b'nesh WP (C) No.550/2013 p SANJAY KISHAN K.AUL, J. INDERMEET KAUR, J. Page 2 of[2] ·, - '!,~-~ ' "':: c