9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nataka High Court; the petitioner, as also the applicant, ought not to approach the same court. She prays for time to obtain instructions. At request, list on 04.08.2021. - W.P.(C) 9521/2020 & CM APPLs 30565/2020 (stay), CM APPL. 16990/2021 (for disposal) and CM APPL. 16695/2021 (impleadment) - - - Dated:- 22-7-2021 - MS. REKHA PALLI, J. Petitioner: Mr. Shankh Sengupta, Ms. Varuna Bhanrale, Mr. Sahil Mendiratta, and Ms. Angelika Awasthi, Advs. for Official Liquidator. Respondents: Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Priyanka MP, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ambar Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Ahuja, Adv. Advs. for Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited for applicants/ M/s. Devas Employees Mauritius Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to take a fresh decision thereon within 180 days. Aggrieved by this order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents approached the Karnataka High Court by way of an appeal being MSA No. 24 of 2020, wherein the Karnataka High Court, vide its order dated 22.02.2021, has stayed the operation of order dated 11.09.2019. It may be noted that while the respondents appeal was still pending consideration before the High Court, the petitioner approached the Adjudicating Authority with an application contending therein that since no fresh order had been passed within 180 days time as stipulated by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11.09.2019, no orders confirming the attachment order could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt petition is not maintainable before this Court and in case, the petitioner has any grievance, it ought to have approached the Karnataka High Court which has stayed the operation of the very order dated 11.09.2019, pursuant whereto, the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.02.2017 before the Karnataka High Court and then having preferred an appeal, which is admittedly pending adjudication before the Karnataka High Court, the petitioner is clearly guilty of concealment of facts and in any event, could not have approached this Court. 7. In response, Ms. Dutt, while not disputing the fact that in view of the appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
