9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vasan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Tine Abraham, Mr. Sidharth Ranade, Ms. Varun Bhanrale, Advocates for R1 Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Swaroop, Mr. Kauser Hussain, Mr. Juvas Rawal, Ms. Megha Rana, Advocates for RP ORDER Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain : This order shall dispose of I.A. No. 113-117 of 2023 filed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 627 of 2019 with a prayer for revival and relisting of CA (AT) (Ins) No. 627 of 2019 and to adjudicate the same upon the questions of facts and law as raised therein, except upon the question of limitation and to direct Respondent No. 2 not to proceed with the CIRP till disposal of present application. 2. In brief, the Respondent 'Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the question of limitation and direct the Respondent not to proceed with the CIRP till disposal of present application" 6. The said applications were argued but ultimately withdrawn by the Appellants/Applicants with the request to avail any other remedy available. The order passed on 21.09.2022 is reproduced as under: "Counsel for the Appellant, after arguing sometime, prays for withdrawal of these applications with a request to avail any other remedy available to her. Dismissed as withdrawn" 7. Thereafter, the Appellants/Applicants filed two I.As before the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. I.A. 315 of 2023 for condonation of delay in filing and I.A. No. 196791 of 2023 for clarification/direction in Civil Appeal No. 84-85 of 2020 in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts has narrated the facts of this case but Counsel for the Respondents has raised a preliminary issue about the maintainability of this application on the ground that exactly similar application had earlier been filed as I.A. No. 3431-3433 of 2022 which was argued for sometime and withdrawn with liberty to avail any other remedy but for the remedy before this Tribunal then how a second application on the same cause of action is maintainable? 11. In this regard, Counsel for the Appellants/Applicants has submitted that the present application has been filed in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by which liberty has been granted. 12. In this regard, Counsel for Respondent has pointed out that it is not an order passed by the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
