9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohn for M/s. King & Patridge for R2 to R4 Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Mr. M. Rajasekhar for R6 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petition impugns an order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), by which petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of Rs. 71,93,82,366/-, which comes to Rs. 35,96,91,183/-. 2. According to petitioners, petitioners cannot be saddled with such a condition. 3. On 26.02.2025, to test the bona fides of petitioners, we directed petitioners to deposit Rs. 120 Crores with the Registrar General of this Court, not later than 3 pm on 04.03.2025. This was the amount that petitioners informed the court that a prospective buyer was interested in paying f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Raghavachari, this was contrary to the provisions of law. 10. We had, in fact, given an opportunity to the parties. Yesterday, when the matter was taken up, following order came to be passed: "Shri Omprakash states that pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2025, a sum of Rs. 120 Crores has been deposited with the Registrar General by one GRT Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the intending purchaser of the property. 2. Shri Ravi states that respondent No.1 will abide by the order of the court because respondent No.1 is interested in recovering the amount. 3. Shri Raja Sekhar states that he will have to take instructions as to whether respondent No.6 will be inclined to improve its offer. 4. At the joint request of Shri Ravi, Shri Raja S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrar General shall transfer the amount to respondent No.1, without any deduction, with accumulated interest, if any, within one week of receiving a request from petitioners/respondent No.1 17. Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. WMP No.1244 of 2025 filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition is allowed, inasmuch as they have paid separate court-fee. Other interim applications stand closed. We make it clear that we have not decided or considered whether petitioners have locus to maintain the appeal before the DRAT or on any other issues raised by petitioners in the proceedings before the DRT, DRAT, NCLT or NCLAT. This order has been passed only to record respondent No.1 has agreed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
