Calcutta High Court
Union Of India vs Bharat Process & Mechanical on 21 January, 2020
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen, Saugata Bhattacharyya
ACO No.23 of 2019
ACO No.24 of 2019
APO No.196 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
UNION OF INDIA
-Versus-
BHARAT PROCESS & MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS LTD. (IN LIQN.)
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 21st January, 2020.
Appearance:
Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. N.L. Singhania, Adv.
Mr. Indrajit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Ms. Lopita Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Shyantee Datta, Adv.
...for the respondent no.2.
Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patnail Adv.
...for the respondent No.5.
Mr. N. Srinivas, Adv.
...for OMDC.
The Court : The appeal and the applications have been heard on 7th January, 2020. Pursuant to notice all the stake holders are represented save and except the official liquidator. Ms. Lopita Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of TPG Equity Management Pvt. Ltd. has brought to our notice an order dated 15th January, 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta, former Chief Justice of our Court to bring to our 2 attention that one of us (Soumen Sen, J.) had represented the said assignee in CA No.620 of 2008. We have perused the order passed in CA No.620 of 2008. We feel that the issues involved are in no way connected with the issues that are required to be adjudicated by us in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the Union of India has submitted that he has no objection in the event the appeal is taken up by this Bench. All the counsel appearing for the parties have agreed that this matter can be taken up by this Bench for consideration.
There is a delay of 92 days in preferring the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Under such circumstances, the delay of 92 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
The official liquidator is not represented. The official liquidator is directed to file an affidavit disclosing the steps taken by the official liquidator since 15th January, 2010 till the filing of the application by TPG Equity Management Pvt. Ltd. in their capacity as assignee of the secured debt of the company (in liquidation) for sanction of scheme. Such affidavit shall be filed within a period of two weeks from date. In the affidavit the official liquidator should indicate whether they have complied with the direction passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to identification of the assets and symbolic possession thereof.
3
Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India should inform us by the adjourned date the inconvenience faced by the Central Government in implementing the impugned order as we feel that the said order does not create any right in favour of the TPG Equity Management Pvt. Ltd.
The parties are directed to immediately communicate this order to the official liquidator for compliance.
In view of pendency of the appeal we request the learned trial Judge not to proceed further with the contempt proceedings. The personal appearance of the officers, for the time being, is stayed. The pendency of this appeal shall not prevent the appellant to constitute a high power committee as directed by the order dated 9th August 2019.
The matter stands adjourned till 11th February, 2020. The department is directed to produce the records of CA No.400 of 2013 on the next date of hearing.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s.