AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
14.08.2023: At the very outset, after perusal of the impugned order i.e. order dated 10.10.2022, we were of the opinion that against such order there was no reason for filing an appeal. However, Mr. P. Nagesh, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that prima facie on examination of the order it appears that the order was not contested by the Appellant, but fact remains that in petition i.e. I.A. No. 377(AHM)2021 besides claiming for possession of the property in question, the prayer was also made in respect of license fee as CIRP and liquidation cost, but Ld. Adjudicating Authority in its order has not dealt with such issue. This submission was made in the presence of Ms. Harimohana N., Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.1/Liquidator as well as Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2. For better appreciation it would be necessary to reproduce the impugned order which is as follows:
IA/322(AHM)2021 and IA/377(AHM)2021
“Both applications are filed by the applicant-licensor to vacate the premises which are in possession of the licensee-liquidator.
Learned Counsel for the licensee-liquidator appeared and submitted that the licensee-liquidator is ready to vacate the premises as they are searching for new ones. Learned Counsel for the liquidator-licensee further submitted that it will be done within thirty days. We recorded the statement.
Learned senior counsel for the applicant-licensor also accepts the statement. We direct the licensee-liquidator to hand over the premises within thirty days. In view of this, both applications stand disposed of”.
On perusal of the aforesaid order and submission made by Mr. Nagesh, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant we are of the opinion that if the Appellant was aggrieved on the point that in the order nothing was recorded by the Tribunal on the other relief, proper course for the Appellant was to re-agitate the issue before the same Tribunal by filing recall application.
In such view of the matter, without interfering with the impugned order, we are of the opinion that appeal can be disposed of granting liberty to the Appellant to request for recall of the order before the Adjudicating Authority. If such application is filed, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority without being prejudice with this order may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
It is made clear that if such application is filed it may not be rejected on the ground of limitation since the Appellant had filed the present appeal and has been permitted by this Tribunal to file such application. This order has been passed with consent of all the parties.
With above observation, the appeal stands disposed of.