Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Aircel Limited Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2018
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
1
REVISED
ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2230-2231/2017
AIRCEL LIMITED ETC. ETC. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
([ONLY D.NO. 30244/2018 TO BE TAKEN UP AGAINST THIS ITEM ON
07.09.2018] )
WITH
Diary No(s). 30244/2018 (XVII)
Date : 07-09-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG
in D.No.30244/2018 Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG
Mr. Anshul Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Aarti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
in D.No.30244/2018 Mr. Salman Khursheed, Sr. Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Chaitanya Safaya, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Adv.
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2018.09.10
Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Alisha Panda, Adv.
17:00:18 IST
Reason:
Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Adv.
2
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv.
Mr. Malak Bhatt, Adv.
Ms. Riya Raychaudhuri, Adv.
Mr. Ravinder Nighawan, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Shroff, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has passed the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 directing the appellant to release the bank guarantees which are furnished by the respondent/company. The basis of the order is that in the writ petitions filed by the respondent/company in the High Court of Calcutta there are certain stay orders granted in favour of the respondent/company and in view of the said stay orders it was not permissible for the appellant to obtain the bank guarantees.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned ASG submits that the appellant has filed the application for vacation of the stay in the High Court of Calcutta which has not been coming up for hearing. In a matter like this, we are of the opinion that it would be apposite if the High Court of Calcutta decides the application for vacation of stay which is filed by the appellant herein inasmuch as status of the appeal depends upon the outcome of that application. We, therefore, impress upon the High Court of Calcutta to decide the application for vacation of stay or the writ petition itself if possible, within four weeks.
The matter can be mentioned before the Chief Justice of the 3 High Court with the present order so that necessary steps are taken in this behalf by assigning the matter to a particular Bench.
The matter stands adjourned to 11.10.2018. In the meantime, interim order to continue. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/company has pointed out that there are insolvency proceedings filed against the respondent/company and the Resolution Plan (RP) and the matter is before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at the moment. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued on 12.02.2018, the respondent/company, in order to avoid the liquidation, has to make payments to various banks by 11.09.2018 as per para Nos. 8 & 9 of the said circular dated 12.02.2018.
Having regard to the aforesaid stay order passed by this Court which is being continued, we are of the opinion that in order to safeguard the interest of the respondent as well, the time for making such a payment to the extent of Rs. 2,000 crores to facilitate the process of resolution under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is extended till the next date of hearing.
(ASHWANI THAKUR) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER
4
ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2230-2231/2017
AIRCEL LIMITED ETC. ETC. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
([ONLY D.NO. 30244/2018 TO BE TAKEN UP AGAINST THIS ITEM ON 07.09.2018] ) WITH Diary No(s). 30244/2018 (XVII) Date : 07-09-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Appellant(s) Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG in D.No.30244/2018 Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Anshul Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Aarti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. in D.No.30244/2018 Mr. Salman Khursheed, Sr. Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Chaitanya Safaya, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Alisha Panda, Adv.
Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv.
5Mr. Malak Bhatt, Adv.
Ms. Riya Raychaudhuri, Adv.
Mr. Ravinder Nighawan, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Shroff, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has passed the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 directing the appellant to release the bank guarantees which are furnished by the respondent/company. The basis of the order is that in the writ petitions filed by the respondent/company in the High Court of Calcutta there are certain stay orders granted in favour of the respondent/company and in view of the said stay orders it was not permissible for the appellant to obtain the bank guarantees.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned ASG submits that the appellant has filed the application for vacation of the stay in the High Court of Calcutta which has not been coming up for hearing. In a matter like this, we are of the opinion that it would be apposite if the High Court of Calcutta decides the application for vacation of stay which is filed by the appellant herein inasmuch as status of the appeal depends upon the outcome of that application. We, therefore, impress upon the High Court of Calcutta to decide the application for vacation of stay or the writ petition itself if possible, within four weeks.
The matter can be mentioned before the Chief Justice of the High Court with the present order so that necessary steps are taken 6 in this behalf by assigning the matter to a particular Bench. The matter stands adjourned to 11.10.2018. In the meantime, interim order to continue. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/company has pointed out that there are insolvency proceedings filed against the respondent/company and the Resolution Procedure (RP) and the matter is before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at the moment. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued on 12.02.2018, the respondent/company, in order to avoid the liquidation, has to make payments to various banks by 11.09.2018 as per para Nos. 8 & 9 of the said circular dated 12.02.2018.
Having regard to the aforesaid stay order passed by this Court which is being continued, we are of the opinion that in order to safeguard the interest of the respondent as well, the time for making such a payment to the extent of Rs. 2,000 crores to facilitate the process of resolution under the information of International Bank of Commerce (IBC) is extended till the next date of hearing.
(ASHWANI THAKUR) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER