Disposed

Nrc Ltd. and Anr. v. the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2014WP/6059/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an order directing the BIFR to lay down parameters for DRS preparation, the court held that since the impugned order did not decide any issue on merits and the petitioner did not press the petition, it was disposed of as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

petitions disposed of as not pressed

Nrc Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Appellate Authority for… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

wp6059

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6059 OF 2013

¶5

NRC Limited & Anr. ...Petitioners
vs.
The Appellate Authority for
Industrial & Financial Reconstruction
New Delhi and ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Girish Godbole a/w Yanya Ghoghani, Mr.Levi Rubes
and Ms Anita Irani i/bVigil Juris for the
petitioners

¶7

Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.Bharat
Zaveri for the respondent No.2

¶8

Ms Jyoti Sinha i/b Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah
for respondent No.3

¶9

Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP `A' Panel for respondent No.14

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.S.GADKARI, JJ.
 DATE : DECEMBER 3,2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 18.
The order impugned in this petition reads thus:

¶13

 “Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. The
Appeal is disposed off at the admission stage with
direction to the BIFR to lay down clear parameters
to the OA for preparation of DRS in accordance with
the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 7.2.2012 in
Civil Appeals No.1920/12, 1921/12, 1922/12 and 1923
after taking into consideration the submission made
by the parties before BIFR on 19.11.12.”

¶14

wp6059

¶15

¶16

2On plain reading of the said order, we are of
the view that the impugned order does not decide any
issue on merits and it merely directs the BIFR to
lay down clear parameters to the OA for preparation
of DRS in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's order dated 7.2.2012.

¶17

3The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the respondent No.2 has no locus
in the proceedings before the BIFR. It is not
disputed before us both by the petitioner and the
respondent No.2 that the issue of locus of the
respondent No.2 has not been decided by the impugned
order. In view of this position, no interference is
called for with the impugned order in writ
jurisdiction.

¶18

4At this stage, the learned counsel for the
petitioner states that in view of what is recorded
above, he is not pressing this petition.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of as not
pressed.

Nrc Ltd. and Anr. v. the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nrc Ltd. and Anr. v. the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Shakeel Sultan and Ors. Vs Nandgaon Municipal Council, through Chief Officer and Ors.

M/S. Vertex Spinning Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

The Collector of Thane and Ors. Vs Sangharsh Kriti Seva Samiti and Ors.

Kiran Piraji Nangare Vs Paras Bhomraj Oswal and Ors.

Mrs. Jaymala Shahajirao Kharade and Ors. Vs Collector, Miraj and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.