Full Text
JUDGMENT
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
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. 2009:DHC:5421-DB
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 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