9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not prejudice to the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to pass ad-interim order. In Para 34 of the impugned order following direction is stayed till pendency of this Appeal:- all governmental or regulatory authorities shall be estopped from taking any coercive steps including reporting in any form and/or changing the account status of the Company Application allowed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 39 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2021 - [Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) And [Mr. Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VP Singh, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Sayobani Basu and Vanya Chhabra, Advocates For the Respondent : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within prescribed period of limitation. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the Application for condonation of delay and he submits that Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 has only extended the period of Limitation and not the period up to which delay can be condoned in exercising of discretion conferred by the statute. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Sagufa Ahmad Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 3007 3008 of 2020 decided on 18.09.2020. There is no ground for condonation of delay hence the Appeal is liable to be dismissed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay up to a period of 45 days. If it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within prescribed period. In the present case the Appellant received the copy of the order on 01.01.2021. Thereafter, filed an Application before Tribunal on 21.01.2021 for permission to intervene. The intervention Application was listed on 17.02.2021and 16.03.2021 but no effective order was passed. Thereafter, spend some time in collecting the relevant documents/informations and in getting approval for filing Appeal. We are of the opinion that the Appellant has explained the delay of 32 days in filing the Appeal, this Appellate Tribunal is empowered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 230 of the Act, in connection with a proposed Scheme of Arrangement of the Company and its creditors covered under the Scheme for obtaining consent from such creditors. While disposing of the said Application the Tribunal in Para 34 of the impugned order passed certain directions, against the Appellant which are as under::- all governmental or regulatory authorities shall be estopped from taking any coercive steps including reporting in any form and/or changing the account status of the Company 10. Being aggrieved with this direction, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 11. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the impugned order Ld. Tribunal has passed aforesaid directions against the Appellant Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) 9 SCC 438 (Para 9) Miheer H. Mafat Lal Vs. Mafat Lal Industries Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 579 (Para 29) 14. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the Appellant has filed an Application before the Tribunal for modification the order during the pendency of application the Appeal has been filed, thus, it is a case of forum shopping. It is also submitted that the aforesaid circular does not apply to any of the parties of the application under Section 230 of the Act. They are not financial institution. 15. Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Higher Purchase and Lease Association Anr. Vs. RBI Ors. WPA No. 9255 of 2020 vide order dated 10.09.2020 passed an order that RBI shall be restrained fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to be dismissed. 18. At this juncture, Ld. Instructing Counsel for the Appellant submits that he undertakes to withdraw the Application for modification of the order pending before the NCLT. 19. After hearing Ld. Counsels for the parties we have considered the submissions and gone through the record. 20. The scope of this Appeal is limited to the extent that whether the Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 230 of the Act, can pass aforesaid directions against the RBI. 21. At this stage, if we express any opinion in regard to the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties it will affect the merits of the Appeal. However, we are of the view that if the operation of the aforesaid direction is stayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
