IFCI LTD Vs. BHARAT STEEL TUBES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and with their consent are disposing of this writ petition. It is also necessary to observe that we had not required the respondents to file their counter affidavit, therefore, it should not be construed that the factual averments made in the writ petition have gone unrebutted or be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In fact, Mr Bhardwaj appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr Maninder Singh appearing for the respondent No.2 have submitted that they are denying all the allegations made against them on factual matters which are contrary to the stand taken by them before various fora in this matter. Of course on legal issues there cannot be any affidavit and therefore the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have controverted the same in their submissions before court.

(2.) THIS case has had a chequered history with three rounds before this court and two rounds before the Supreme Court. In the first round the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P (C) 6652/2010 in which an interim order dated 29.09.10 had been passed by a Division Bench of this Court. However, that order became the subject matter of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being SLP (C) 29421/2010. Since the matter was pending before the Supreme Court the writ petition was disposed of on 11.11.2010. In the second round, two writ petitions being W.P. (C) 254/2011 and W.P. (C) 415/2011 were disposed of by a Division Bench of this court on 15.02.2011. In the third round, writ petition No. 2282/2011 was filed before this court by the present petitioner which was also disposed of on 20.04.2011 by another Division Bench of this Court. Before the second round of writ petitions in this court, the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition by virtue of an order dated 30.11.10 whereby the Supreme Court inter alia passed the following orders:- 30. We, therefore, dispose of the Special Leave Petition with a direction upon the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the pending appeal as early as possible since it would not be proper on our part to express any definite view regard to the pending proceedings before the said Tribunal. Till a decision is arrived at by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the matter, the auction proceedings being conducted under the SARFAESI Act shall remain stayed.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the above order had noticed that three issues needed to be resolved by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The issues being of limitation, maintainability and interim relief. As noticed in paragraph 26 of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal order it is clear that the parties were directed to appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 30.03.2011 and the Debt Recovery Tribunal was also directed to try and expedite the case. IT was clearly indicated that till then status quo would be maintained. IT was also directed that the Debt Recovery Tribunal would decide whether the interim order was to continue or not. This was apart from the direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the question of limitation and maintainability first of all.