Disposed

Rabindra Kumar Walia v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 May 2016W.P.(C)/1909/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondents to furnish a demarcated site plan with lease details excluding tenant names. The court declined to decide locus standi as the matter is sub judice before AAIFR, which was then likely to resume functions. The petition was disposed of pending proceedings before AAIFR.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to furnish a site plan with details excluding tenant names within 15 days; disposed of writ petition pending AAIFR proceedings.

Rabindra Kumar Walia Vs Union of India & Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~2.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1909/2016

¶4

RABINDRA KUMAR WALIA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Advocate for petitioner No. 1.

¶6

Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Purti Marwaha, Advocate for petitioner No. 2. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi & Mr. Shravan Sahay, Advocates for petitioner No. 3.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for respondent No. 1-UOI.

¶9

Mr. Amit S. Chaddha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Adv. for respondent No. 4. Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Indrani Mukherjee, Advocate for the applicantAgarpara Co. Ltd. in CM No.15138/2016. Mr. Neeraj Chaudhry, Advocate for National Union of Jute Workers.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶12

¶13

O R D E R 04.05.2016

¶14

We have heard counsel for the parties at some length, including the two set of counsel, who claim to be representing Agarpara Company Limited. We have been informed that the shareholding and control of Agarpara Company Limited is subject matter of proceedings before the Company Law Board.

¶15

During the course of hearing, it is brought to our notice that

¶16

W.P. (C) No. 1909/2016 Page 1 of 5

¶17

Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) is likely to function from this week as required coram to constitute a Bench is now in place.

¶18

The petitioner had approached this Court by way of this writ petition relying upon order dated 28^th August, 2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 8268/2015 and then order dated 30^th November, 2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 11151/2015. It is submitted that the specific directions for timely disposal of the applications and the appeal by the AAIFR were given in the latter order. Subsequently, on 4^th December, 2015 AAIFR had reserved the orders on the applications seeking inspection and preservation of the assets of Agarpara Jute Mills Limited. However, before order could be passed, one of the Members of the AAIFR demitted office on 23^rd January, 2016 and the Members in the AAIFR fell below the coram prescribed by law.

¶19

On 4^th March, 2016, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed:-

¶20

“ CM No.8165/2016(exemption)

¶21

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶22

Application stands disposed of.

¶23

WP(C) No.1909 /2016 & CM No.8164 /2016

¶24

Amended memo of parties impleading M/s Agarara Company Ltd. and Mahendra Kumar Sharma as co-petitioners will be filed within three days from today with a copy to the counsel for the respondents. We clarify that it will be open to the respondents to question the locus standi of the petitioner as well as the newly pleaded petitioners.

¶25

We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for Agarpara Jute Mills Ltd (respondent No.3) will file an affidavit of the Managing Director/authorized director giving the following details/particular/enclosures:-

¶26

i) The leases in favour of third parties/tenants as they existed on 1^st January, 2013 and any lease deed executed thereafter including renewals made after 1^st January, 2013. The rent will be indicated and specified.

¶27

W.P. (C) No. 1909/2016 Page 2 of 5

¶28

ii) Copy of the site plan along with demarcation of the areas given on lease to the respective tenants. Area/portion in occupation of each tenant will be specified and demarcated.

¶29

iii) Construction, if any, being undertaken in the property. It will be indicated whether the construction is being undertaken by the company itself, by the tenants/lessees or by a third party. We record that during the course of the hearing, learned

¶30

counsel for the respondents have stated that they have no objection to the filing of affidavit with the said particulars/details, as there is nothing to hide and conceal. It is, however, stated that a copy of the said affidavit

¶31

should not be furnished to the counsel appearing for the petitioners as there have been instances where information has been misused.

¶32

At this stage, the affidavit be filed in a sealed cover, without a copy to the other side. Affidavit will be filed within three weeks from today.

¶33

Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, learned Senior Advocate states that he has been instructed to appear for Agarara Company Ltd. and that the company would be moving an appropriate application.

¶34

Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior Advocate states that he has been instructed to appear for the same company. This dispute is not being decided at this stage. List on 27^th April, 2016.”

¶35

Affidavit along with the documents in terms of the directions in the said order have been filed in the sealed covers.

¶36

We have opened the sealed covers and examined the affidavit and documents.

¶37

One of the contentions raised before us by the respondents is that the petitioners do not have any locus standi as they are neither shareholders nor are they in control of M/s Agarpara Company Limited. This aspect is subjudice before the AAIFR and also before the Company Law Board. Perhaps, this aspect is one of the core disputes and issues, which will have to be decided by the authorities under the Companies Act. This aspect may have to be examined by the AAIFR.

¶38

Keeping in view the limited controversy before us, we are inclined to

¶39

W.P. (C) No. 1909/2016 Page 3 of 5

¶40

pass the following order:-

¶41

(i) The respondents will furnish to the petitioners, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, a site plan of the property located at Barrackpore Trunk Road in Kolkatta clearly demarcating the areas in occupation of the tenants/licensees and the rent received by them without specifying the name and particulars of the tenants/licensees. The date on which the initial lease/licence deed was executed in favour of the said tenant/licensee and the date of current renewal and the initial and the present rent/license fee will be stated. The area in occupation in square feet (if it is constructed) and in square metres (Open area) will be indicated.

¶42

The site plan with details will be furnished within 15 days.

¶43

At this stage, we are not passing or issuing any direction with regard to name of the tenants/licensees, as apprehension has been expressed by the counsel for the respondents that this would be misused. It is also urged that these details should not be furnished without the issue with regard to locus standi being decided.

¶44

As noticed above, we are not deciding the issue of locus standi in the present writ petition as we are informed that the regular bench of AAIFR is likely to function shortly.

¶45

We have passed this order with the consent of the counsel for the respondents, who however clarifies that this order would not prejudice their rights and contentions to claim that the petitioners do not have any locus standi .

¶46

Mr. Amit S. Chaddha, learned senior counsel, on instructions, states that they would be moving an appropriate application before AAIFR/ BIFR seeking post facto approval for giving property of the company on

¶47

W.P. (C) No. 1909/2016 Page 4 of 5

¶48

rent/licence. Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned senior counsel, on instructions, states that they will be filing an application as interim orders have been violated. We have recorded the said statements by the learned senior counsel, on instructions, without expressing any opinion on merits or maintainability.

¶49

The affidavit along with documents will be put back under seal cover. They will be transmitted to the AAIFR. Whether the said documents should be kept in the open file and should be furnished to the petitioners herein would be decided by the AAIFR.

¶50

It will be open to the petitioners and the respondents to highlight the earlier order dated 30^th November, 2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 11153/2015 before the AAIFR and make a request for early hearing.

¶51

With the aforesaid directions, we dispose of the present writ petition. 16. To cut short the delay, we direct the parties to appear before the AAIFR on 16^th May, 2016, when a date of hearing will be fixed. 17. Parties are also given liberty to approach this Court by way of an application, in case there is any difficulty. We clarify that this order will not be construed as expression of binding opinion of this Court on any aspect and issues.

¶52

Copy of this order will be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under signature of the Court Master.

¶53

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶54

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

¶55

MAY 04, 2016 VKR

¶56

W.P. (C) No. 1909/2016 Page 5 of 5

Rabindra Kumar Walia v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Kumar Walia v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

D.P. Sharma Vs M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

M/S Rathore Fair Price Shop Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Syndicate Bank Vs Anand Prasad & Anr.

Kiran Jain & Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rahul-I Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mahesh Singh Nimesh & Ors. Vs P.K. Gupta & Ors.

Kapil Kumar Setia and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Mahesh Chander & Ors.

Vir Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ishwari Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.