IFCI Ltd. vs Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd and Another

Anil Kumar, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd March, 2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the Misc. Appeal No. 352-353/2010 titled as IFCI Limited v. Bharat Steel Tubes Limited whereby Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal directed the parties to appear before Debts Recovery Tribunal on 30th March, 2011for adjudication of disputes between them and also directed the Tribunal to expedite the case and till then ordered status quo.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide whether to continue the interim order or not and also to decide the question of limitation and maintainability of the application.

The writ petition was filed against the said order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and it was taken up for hearing on 5th April, 2011 and thereafter on 7th April, 2011.The proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were, however, not stayed though the Petitioner had prayed for stay of operation of order dated 22nd March, 2011 and stay of proceedings.

On 7th April, 2011, this Court was intimated that on 30th March, 2011, on which date the parties were directed to appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at the instance of the Petitioner, the matter had been adjourned to 11th April, 2011. On 7th April, 2011, the counsel for the Petitioner on instructions had stated that the matter shall be argued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 11th April, 2011. The counsel for the Respondent had also not objected to appear on 11th April, 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and argue the matter in terms of the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

In the circumstances, this Court had directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to hear the arguments on the pleas and contentions between the parties, which are pending adjudication before Debt Recovery Tribunal in view of the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. This Court had had also directed that the Debts Recovery Tribunal will hear the matter expeditiously and if the arguments are not concluded on 11th April, 2011, the arguments be heard on day to day basis, if convenient, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for the parties have contended that matter was argued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 11th April, 2011, 13th April, 2011, 15th April, 2011, 18th April, 2011 and 19th April, 2011. The learned Counsel also contends that the matter is being heard on day to day basis according to the convenience of the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Since the matter is being heard expeditiously by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 7th April, 2011 and the Petitioner and the Respondent have argued the matter, no further orders are required in the present facts and circumstances and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 7th April, 2011 passed by this Court, as the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, had stated that the matter shall be argued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the learned Counsel for the Respondent also did not have any objection to argue the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in respect of disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 7th April, 2011 as the said order is being implemented and as no further orders are required. All the pending applications are also disposed of.