Delhi High Court - Orders
Transstroy Tirupati Tiruthani Chennai ... vs The National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 February, 2019
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 456/2018
TRANSSTROY TIRUPATI TIRUTHANI CHENNAI TOLLWAYS
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Bina Gupta with Mr. Kshitij
Vaibhav, Advs
versus
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Sharma with Mr. Abhishek
Sharma, Advs for respondent no. 1
Mr. Rajiv Kapoor with Mr. Srikant
Sharma, Advs for respondent no.
2/NHAI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 08.02.2019 I.A. No. 1968/2019 (early hearing)
1. This is an early hearing application moved by respondent no. 1 i.e. Allahabad Bank.
2. Mr. Sharma says that there has been concealment of facts by the non- applicant/petitioner.
3. Mr. Sharma emphasises that the non-applicant/petitioner has not placed on record the substitution agreement.
4. Mr. Sharma further says that the non-applicant/petitioner has not been depositing the toll in the designated Escrow Account. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 456/2018 page 1 of 2
5. Ms. Bina Gupta, who, appears for the non-applicant/petitioner says that she has no instructions on the assertions made by Mr. Sharma. However, Ms. Bina Gupta says that toll with effect from 23.10.2018 has been collected by the non-applicant/respondent no. 2 i.e. NHAI.
6. This apart, it is Mr. Sharma's contention that the reason that this Court has been moved for advancing the date of hearing is that the applicant's petition under the IBC Code, 2016 is coming up for hearing before NCLT on 20.02.2019.
7. Having regard to the position of the board, early hearing is not possible.
8. The matter, in any event, is coming up for hearing on 08.03.2019.
9. I may also note that non-applicant/respondent no. 2 i.e. NHAI has not filed its reply as yet.
10. The application is disposed of accordingly.
11. Needless to say, parties will complete pleadings in the matter before 08.03.2019.
12. Furthermore, the Registry is directed to correct the title of the case as appearing in the cause list as it is not in consonance with the Memo of Parties.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 08, 2019 c O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 456/2018 page 2 of 2