AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
27.02.2025: This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 by which an application filed by the Appellant bearing I.A No. 3623 of 2024 seeking following reliefs “a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the present Interlocutory Application and take a note of the subsequent events as narrated in the present Application and further permit the Applicant to file an Additional Affidavit in CP No/132/2024 for bringing out subsequent events on records; b) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to defer the pronouncement of the order which was reserved on 21.06.2024, till final adjudication of the interest component is made by the Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai in Appeal (Diary) No. 1290 of 2024” has been dismissed.
In this appeal, notice was issued to Respondent on 06.08.2024 and interim order was granted. The said order is reproduced as under:-
“06.08.2024: Counsel appearing for the Canara Bank has obtained instructions and submits that even if the amount deposited before the DRT is given a credit as well as further amount to be deposited and order dated 23.07.2024 of the Bombay High Court, the amount balance shall be only Rs.2.89 Crores which is still to be paid by the Appellant.
2.Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 23.07.2024 in Writ Petition No.9986 of 2024 filed by the Appellant. In paragraphs 8 & 9 of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, following has been directed:-
“8.In these facts, the interest of justice demands that the interlocutory application preferred by the petitioner being Interim Application No.3623 of 2024 be first decided before proceeding to pronounce final order on the Company Petition. The statement made on behalf of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.4,63,54,861/- would be deposited with the DRAT within a period of four weeks from today is accepted. The petitioner shall comply with the said statement. In case any adverse order is passed on the Interlocutory Application, the same shall not be acted upon for a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
9.By clarifying that this Court has not examined the merits of the prayers made in the Interlocutory Application and by stating that all contentions can be raised before the NCLT, the writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions. Rule accordingly.”
3.Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amount of Rs.4,63,54,861/- is to be deposited by 20.08.2024 which deposit shall be made by the Appellant by 20.08.2024 as directed by the Bombay High Court.
4.In view of the facts as noted above and submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority may not proceed any further in CP (IB)/132/MB-IV/2024 till the next date.
5.Issue notice. Respondent may file Reply within one week. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
6.List this Appeal on 23.08.2024. Interim protection which had been granted by the Bombay High Court in paragraph 8 shall continue till the next date.”
While the matter was pending, the parties settled their dispute before the DRAT. In this regard, an order was passed on 13.02.2025:-
“13.02.2025: Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties in the court of DRAT but the order of the DRAT is not available so far. He requests for an adjournment to bring on record the order of the DRAT so that an appropriate order may be passed in this appeal. Counsel for the appellant is permitted to place on record the order of DRAT before the next date of hearing. List this appeal again on 27.02.2025. Interim order to continue.”
Today, Counsel for the Appellant has produced an order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the DRAT in I.A No. 92 of 2025 in Appeal No. 61 f 2024 which is reproduced as under:-
“The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the appellants for seeking urgent relief. It is submitted by the parties that the OTS proposal has been accepted and a sum of ₹11.50 crores is to be paid toward the full and final settlement of the debt due to the bank.
2.The amount lying in deposit before this Tribunal is sought to be withdrawn by the respondent by filing I.A. No. 92/2025.
3.The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants has no objection to the amount being withdrawn by the bank and hence, the amount lying in the deposit shall be released to the respondent bank on proper acknowledgement and the accrued interest shall be released to the appellants.
The appeal is disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the OTS. The respondent bank shall issue a No Due Certificate on receipt of the entire dues and the appellants shall be discharged from their liabilities.”
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Counsel for the Appellant has prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal.
Counsel for the Respondent Bank has not raised any objection in this regard rather he has submitted that in view of the aforesaid order and settlement between the parties, not only the Appellant shall withdraw the appeal but also the Respondent shall withdraw its application pending before the Tribunal.
Be that as it may, the present appeal, on the asking of the Appellant, is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.