AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. N. Goenka, learned counsel representing the Interim Resolution
Professional (IRP) i.e. Mr. Sandeep Khaitan. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent bank.
By filing IA(C) No. 1065/2021, the writ petitioners have prayed for extending the operation of the interim order dated 28/05/2021 passed by this Court
in WP(C) 2965/2021 till such time the applications pending before the NCLAT is taken up for hearing on merit.
Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the applications filed by the petitioners were listed before the NCLAT on
14/06/2021, yet, the matter has now been fixed for hearing on 21/06/2021. Hence, the prayer in the IA.
Mr. Goenka, learned counsel for the IRP, on the other hand, has invited the attention of this Court to the statements made in IA(C) 1085/2021 filed by
the IRP to submit that certain subsequent developments taking place in the matter have been brought on record of this case by filing this IA so as to
appraise this Court that there has been no violation of the interim order passed by this Court. Mr. Goenka submits that the IRP has in the meantime,
held the meeting of the CoC ( i.e. Committee of Creditors) on 11/06/2021 by following the due process of law. Mr. Goenka has, however, strongly
opposed the prayer made by the Writ Petitioners/Applicants in IA (C) 1065/2021, by submitting that the proceedings referred to in the interim order
dated 28/05/2021, passed by this court, is different from the ones fixed for hearing before the NCLAT on 21/06/2021.
Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent bank, submits that since the matter has been taken over by the IRP, the bank does not have any role
to play in this matter at this stage.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
It is apparent from the interim order dated 28/05/2021 passed by this Court that the purpose of the order was to extend some protection to the Writ
Petitioners till such time the applications filed before the NCLAT were taken up for hearing on merit. In view of the above and considering the fact
that the applications filed by the Writ Petitioners are admittedly posted for hearing on 21/06/2021 before the NCLAT, I find force in the submission of
Mr. Sharma that the operation of the interim order deserves to be extended till such time the applications are considered by the NCLAT on merit and
an order is passed thereon. As such, the interim order dated 228/05/2021 is hereby extended till such time, the applications already filed by the Writ
Petitioners and posted for hearing before the NCLAT ON 21/06/2021 are decided by a speaking order.
In so far as the IA (C) 1085/2021 is concerned, the same is taken on record. After going through the statements made therein and after considering
the submissions of Mr. Goenka, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there has been no violation of the interim order dated 28/05/2021 by
holding the meeting of the CoC. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to move appropriate application in the matter, if so advised.
Let this writ petition and the connected IAs be posted again after three weeks for necessary orders.