Full Text
Translation output
•- •' l' i
$-26 to 30 -:
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 81/2017 & C.M.No.4036/2017
ZYNC GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS Petitioners
Througli Mr.SaurabhKirpal withMr.Manohar Malik, Advocates.
$-26 to 30 -:
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 81/2017 & C.M.No.4036/2017
ZYNC GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS Petitioners
Througli Mr.SaurabhKirpal withMr.Manohar Malik, Advocates.
VERSUS
DEVESH KUMAR Respondent
Through Mr.Karan Khanna, Advocate for PNB.
Through Mr.Karan Khanna, Advocate for PNB.
CONT.CAS(C) 82/2017 &C.M.No.4040/2017
APPLE COMMODITIES PVT LTD &ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar -
APPLE COMMODITIES PVT LTD &ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar -
VERSUS
PNB.
/
/
CONT.CAS(C) 83/2017 i& C.M.No.4041/2017
APPLE SPONGE &POWER LTD &ANR Petitioners :
Through Mr:Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar
APPLE SPONGE &POWER LTD &ANR Petitioners :
Through Mr:Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar
VERSUS
PNB.
CONT.CAS(C) 84/2017 &C.M.No.4042/2017
APPLE INDUSTRIES LTD. Sl ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar I 2017:DHC:8534
APPLE INDUSTRIES LTD. Sl ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar I 2017:DHC:8534
VERSUS
DEVESH KUMAR
PNB.
PNB.
CONT.CAS(C) 86/2017 & C.M.No.4044/2017
ASmSHGARG p,, Through Mr.Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar
ASmSHGARG p,, Through Mr.Saurabh Kirpal with Mr.Manohar
VERSUS
PNB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
09.02.2017 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of orders dated 17'^ May, 2016 and 20'*' May, 2016 passed in writ petitions filed by the petitioners, whereby the
Grievance Redressal Committee of respondent-PNB was directed to grant hearing to the petitioners on or before 30"" June, 2016 and to take a decision whether the petitioners are liable to be declared as wilful defaulters in accordance with the latest circular of the Reserve
Bank ofIndia on or before 8^*^ July, 2016.
In the present contempt petitions, it has been averred that though in pursuance to the aforesaid orders, respondent-PNB vide email dated 7^*^ June, 2016 had asked the petitioners to appear for hearing on 9*^ June, 2016, yet neither any hearing was granted on the
(> said date nor any order lias been passed by the Grievance RedressaJ
Committee till date.
Today learned counsel for the respondent-PNB, who appears on advance notice, has handed over a photocopy of order dated 10'^
August, 2016 passed in compliance to the aforesaid order dated 17^''
May, 2016 and 20''^ May, 2016.
Mr.Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 10^*^ August, 2016 is not supported by any reason.
Learned counsel for the respondent-PNB controverts the said contention. '
However, this Court is of the view that the issue whether the order dated 10^*^ August, 2016 is a non-reasoned order or not would have to be examined as and when the said order is challenged and the relevant files are produced.
Consequently, the present contempt petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 10^ August, 2016 in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
However, this Courtwouldlike to observe that the respondent-
PNB should have communicated forthwith the order dated lO"^
August, 2016 to the petitioners passed in compliance of the orders dated17'"May,2016and20'^May,2016. ^
MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 09,2017 KA
09.02.2017 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of orders dated 17'^ May, 2016 and 20'*' May, 2016 passed in writ petitions filed by the petitioners, whereby the
Grievance Redressal Committee of respondent-PNB was directed to grant hearing to the petitioners on or before 30"" June, 2016 and to take a decision whether the petitioners are liable to be declared as wilful defaulters in accordance with the latest circular of the Reserve
Bank ofIndia on or before 8^*^ July, 2016.
In the present contempt petitions, it has been averred that though in pursuance to the aforesaid orders, respondent-PNB vide email dated 7^*^ June, 2016 had asked the petitioners to appear for hearing on 9*^ June, 2016, yet neither any hearing was granted on the
(> said date nor any order lias been passed by the Grievance RedressaJ
Committee till date.
Today learned counsel for the respondent-PNB, who appears on advance notice, has handed over a photocopy of order dated 10'^
August, 2016 passed in compliance to the aforesaid order dated 17^''
May, 2016 and 20''^ May, 2016.
Mr.Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 10^*^ August, 2016 is not supported by any reason.
Learned counsel for the respondent-PNB controverts the said contention. '
However, this Court is of the view that the issue whether the order dated 10^*^ August, 2016 is a non-reasoned order or not would have to be examined as and when the said order is challenged and the relevant files are produced.
Consequently, the present contempt petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 10^ August, 2016 in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
However, this Courtwouldlike to observe that the respondent-
PNB should have communicated forthwith the order dated lO"^
August, 2016 to the petitioners passed in compliance of the orders dated17'"May,2016and20'^May,2016. ^
MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 09,2017 KA
JUDGMENT