AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent no.5 filed O.A. bearing T.A. No.815/2022 titled as HDFC Bank Limited V. Tirupati Coating Private Limited & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. The appellant was not impleaded as one of the parties in the O.A. bearing T.A. No.815/2022. The appellant during the pendency of the said O.A. filed an interim application vide diary No. 377 dated 20.01.2023 for impleadment as necessary party and for other directions. DRT-I, Delhi vide impugned order dated 25.05.2023 dismissed the application. The relevant part of impugned order dated 25.05.2023 is reproduced as under:
7.Admittedly, after the passing of aforesaid order 10.03.2021 by this Tribunal in this matter, the Applicant Company had filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 before Ld. Arbitrator on 18.03.2021 and in the said application vide paragraph 13, the Applicant Company submitted about the passing of the order dated 10.03.2021 by this Tribunal and thereafter Learned Arbitrator passed an order dated 21.03.2021 thereby allowing the relief of restrain against the Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Further, the applicant bank is claiming its charge over the goods/machines etc. vide Deed of Hypothecation dated 29.08.2017, whereas the applicant company i.e. Tata Capital Financial Service Limited is claiming its charge since 31.05.2018 meaning thereby the applicant bank is having prior charge over the hypothecated goods/stocks and machines and the applicant company Tata Capital Financial Services Limited is having second charge. Further, the applicant company Tata Capital Financial Services Limited does not come under the definition of Section 2 (h) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 because the applicant is not a financial institution and if it has any grievance against the defendants they should approach the civil court for recovery of their dues and in view of the applicant company i.e. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited is not necessary party to this O.A. and thus the present application is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
Ms. Ekta Bhasin, Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant/applicant i.e. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited is also claiming charge over the subject property since 31.05.2018 and the DRT has wrongly observed that the respondent no.5 HDFC Bank is having prior charge over the subject property.
In the opinion of this Tribunal, valuable rights of the appellant are involved in the present O.A. bearing T.A. No.815/2022 but impleadment of the appellant as one of the necessary parties in the said O.A. shall expand the scope of the O.A. as also argued by the counsel for the respondent no.5. The appellant cannot be allowed to be impleaded as one of the necessary parties in the O.A. However, in the facts and circumstances as submitted by the counsel for the appellant and as stated by the appellant in the application filed vide diary no.377 dated 28.01.2023, the appellant is permitted to participate in the proceedings arising out of O.A. bearing T.A. No.815/2022 and also permitted to make necessary submissions to establish its rights/charge over the subject property in accordance with law. The appellant shall also be at liberty to file response to the original application within 30 days from today. With these directions the present appeal stands disposed of.
It is expected that the concerned DRT shall make every possible endeavour to dispose of the OA as early as possible without any further delay.