TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & CM APPL. 10304/2017 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Petitioner Through: Ms. Purti Marwaha, Ms. Henna George and Ms. Shakil Ahmed, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Ms.Eshita Baruah, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Avneesh Garg and Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Advocate for R-4. MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner had pursuant to the previous order filed an affidavit stating the matters in which one of us (S. Ravindra Bhat, J) had recused. It appears from the affidavit that in two orders relating to M/s Agarpara Jute Mills Ltd. [W.P.(C) 1345-1348/2016, W.P.(C) 1356/2016, W.P.(C) 3465/2016 and W.P.(C) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnel forum and eventually, the Repeal Act came into force w.e.f 01.12.2016. As difficulties with respect to the pending appeals and other questions arose, which became the subject matter of litigations in various Courts including a judgment of the Supreme Court and the Removal of Difficulties Order 2017, an addition of Section 4(b) to the Repeal Act was enacted to apply retrospectively. The petitioner contends that in the light of further developments (by way of the order of this Court in Twenty First Century Steels Ltd. vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1621/2017 decided on 06.02.2018) a similar order enabling the petitioner, an aggrieved party, to approach the National Company Law Tribunal, be made. 4. This Court had occasion to deal wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Provisions) Act, 1985 shall stand abated. In ATV Projects (India) Limited vs. Union of India and Others, WP(C) 4340/2017 decided on 05.12.2017 , it was held that Section 4(b) is an explicit provision which states that all proceedings under the Repeal Act shall stand abated. Fourth proviso inserted by way of Removal of Difficulty Order, 2017 is applicable only to a limited class of persons, that is, persons aggrieved by the sanctioning of scheme and in whose cases limitation period for filing of the appeal had not expired. Ninth respondent has affirmed that the fourth proviso would not be applicable to and does not confer a right on the sick Company but would be applicable to only third parties, who were aggrieved by the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince this Court had clarified that in somewhat analogous situation, those aggrieved by the Repealed Act or perceived difficulties on account of the Repeal Act, are at liberty to approach the National Company Law Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that a similar approach is to be adopted in this case as well. It is therefore directed that in case, the petitioner approaches the National Company Law Tribunal within 60 days from today, the Tribunal should consider it on its merits and not reject it on the ground that it was preferred beyond the period of 180 days prescribed by the Act (on account of the pendency of these proceedings). We also clarify that if there is any dispute as to the locus standi of the present petitioner (Mahindra Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
