Full Text
Translation output
.1^ v_ ■
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)9036/2019
M/S UMANG REALTECH(P)LTD.
Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay K.Singh Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)9036/2019
M/S UMANG REALTECH(P)LTD.
Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay K.Singh Adv.
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RERA AND ANR.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi Singh, Mr.Rajat Sharma Advs.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi Singh, Mr.Rajat Sharma Advs.
W.P.(C)9046/2019
M/S UMANGREALTECH(P)LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay K.Singh,Adv.
M/S UMANGREALTECH(P)LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay K.Singh,Adv.
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RERA AND ANR.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi singh, Mr.Rajat Sharma Advs.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi singh, Mr.Rajat Sharma Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
06.09.2019
06.09.2019
CM 37290/2019 in W.P.IO 9036/2019
CM 37322/2019 in W.P.ICI 9046/2019
Exemptions allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
Exemptions allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
W.P.(CI 9036/2019 & CM 37289/2019
W.P.ICl 9046/2019 & CM 37321/2019 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench in CP No. IB-1564(PB)/2018, the petition against the petitioner company under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code,2016 has been admitted and moratorium has been
2019:DHC:7918 ordered. He submits that he has no instructions from the Interim
ResolutionProfessionalforprosecutingthe presentpetition.
Be that as it may, in terms of Section 58 ofthe Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
Act),the remedy to the petitioner is in the form ofan Appealto the
High Court. In view of the availability of this alternate.efficacious remedy,this Court refuses to exercisejurisdiction in the present writ petition. It would be open to the petitioner to take the appropriate remedy available to itin law under Section 58 ofthe Act.
The petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner as above.
NAVIN CHAWLA,J SEPTEMBER 06,2019/hk 2019:DHC:7918
W.P.ICl 9046/2019 & CM 37321/2019 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench in CP No. IB-1564(PB)/2018, the petition against the petitioner company under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code,2016 has been admitted and moratorium has been
2019:DHC:7918 ordered. He submits that he has no instructions from the Interim
ResolutionProfessionalforprosecutingthe presentpetition.
Be that as it may, in terms of Section 58 ofthe Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
Act),the remedy to the petitioner is in the form ofan Appealto the
High Court. In view of the availability of this alternate.efficacious remedy,this Court refuses to exercisejurisdiction in the present writ petition. It would be open to the petitioner to take the appropriate remedy available to itin law under Section 58 ofthe Act.
The petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner as above.
NAVIN CHAWLA,J SEPTEMBER 06,2019/hk 2019:DHC:7918
JUDGMENT