9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court's order dated 17.09.2020. In terms of the order dated 04.08.2020, a recovery certificate was issued by the learned DRT, which was sought to be enforced by the recovery officer. There is some controversy before the recovery officer as to who could represent the TFCI in that case. Apparently, Edelweiss's counsel had sought to represent the TFCI in those proceedings as the recovery certificate was issued in favour of the TFCI. The respondents have sought to raise another controversy in regard to whether the recovery certificate issued in favour of the TFCI could be enforced in favor of Edelweiss. Although the scope of controversy now before the learned DRAT is limited to the review petition confined to the amount of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Park Ltd. Ors.; (B) Set aside the Order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble DRAT in MA No. 33/2021 in Appeal No. 280/2019 titled as 'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Nishiland Park Ltd. Ors.; (C) Direct DRT-1, Delhi to dispose off the OA No. 280/1999 titled as 'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited v. Nishiland Park Ltd. Ors.' in a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, keeping in view the fact that the said OA is pending adjudication for more than 22 years: (D) Costs of the petition be allowed to the Petitioner; and 2. This case has a chequered history. The Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (hereafter 'the TFCI') had extended certain financial facilities to responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned DRAT had noted that the OA was filed for the said sum along with pendente lite and future interest at contractual rates, however, the learned DRAT did not directed issuance of a recovery certificate in respect of the pendente lite and future interest and confined the recovery certificate to Rs. 7,96,49,202/- and left the remaining contentious issues to be decided by the learned DRT. Paragraph no. 17 of the said order is relevant and set out below: - 17. The DRT shall now take up the OA. on its board on 29.08.2020 and then proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to the concerned parties of addressing fresh arguments, if so desired by them. Considering the fact that this legal battle for recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as under:- CM No. 23011/2020 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 6593/2020 and CM Nos. 23010/2020 (stay) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2020, passed by the learned DRAT and the subsequent order dated 21.08.2020, passed by the DRT. Vide order dated 04.08.2020, the learned DRAT has set aside the order dated 27.02.2015, passed by the DRT in OA No. 280/1999 and has remanded the matter back to the DRT for disposal. Further, the learned DRAT has observed that that OA was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 7,96,49,202l- along with the pendente lite and future interest against the petitioners and resultantly, dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent from the above that the respondents' limited contention before this Court was regarding an error committed by the learned DRAT in not noticing that the amount, as directed to be paid, already stood discharged. In this context, this Court had observed that if there was a factual error, the respondents ought to have approached the learned DRAT. The respondents had reserved the right to do so as is apparent from paragraph no.3 4 of this Court's order dated 17.09.2020. 8. In terms of the order dated 04.08.2020, a recovery certificate was issued by the learned DRT, which was sought to be enforced by the recovery officer. 9. There is some controversy before the recovery officer as to who could represent the TFCI in that case. Apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the same were in the 'nature of challenge to the correctness of the order dated 04.08.2020' and therefore, could not be considered. 13. The respondents have not taken any steps to assail the said order dated 08.02.2021, which has attained finality. 14. Although the scope of controversy now before the learned DRAT is limited to the review petition [Misc. (Review) Application No. 48/2020] confined to the amount of the recovery certificate. It appears that the respondent has sought to expand the scope of controversy before the learned DRAT and has filed an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter 'CrPC') being Miscellaneous Application No.33/2021. According to the petitioner, the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
