SHYAMAL JAIDEV PANCHMATIYA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is raised to the order dtd. 19/6/2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur refusing to grant any interim relief in the proceedings filed by the petitioners herein. The prayer made in the interim application was to stay the auction notice that was published by respondent No.1 dtd. 3/6/2023 proposing to auction the properties in which the petitioners claim interest. The said auction is to be held today at 11:00 am. While rejecting the said application, the Tribunal has clarified that if the e-auction is concluded, the same would be subject to the outcome of the Securitisation Application.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment dtd. 25/5/2023 passed in the Company Appeal preferred by petitioner No.2 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal submits that time of 30 days was granted to petitioner No.2 to submit a compromise or arrangement before the Liquidator and a further direction to keep the liquidation proceedings in abeyance for a period of 90 days came to be issued. As of today, petitioner No.2 still has 4 days to submit the compromise or arrangement plan with the Liquidator. In view of the auction being conducted today, petitioner No.2 would be deprived of the opportunity granted to submit compromise or arrangement plan by NCLAT. It is urged that though the Tribunal has made the e-auction subject to the outcome of the proceedings, the same would cause harm to the petitioners since they would not be in a position to submit such compromise or arrangement once the auction takes place. It is thus urged that this Court ought to interfere in the matter especially when the order passed by the Tribunal is non-speaking and without considering the relevant aspect.