Delhi High Court - Orders
Overnite Express Limited vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 19 June, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~O-1 to 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 254/2019
OVERNITE EXPRESS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
+ O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 255/2019
OVERNITE EXPRESS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
+ O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 256/2019
OVERNITE EXPRESS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
+ O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 257/2019
OVERNITE EXPRESS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Present: Mr. Rohit Gandhi & Mr. Adhish Srivastava, Advocates for
Petitioners in all matters
Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for Respondent in all
matters
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 19.06.2020 I.A. 4534/2020 IN O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 254/2019 I.A. 4536/2020 IN O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 255/2019 I.A. 4538/2020 IN O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 256/2019 I.A. 4540/2020 IN O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 257/2019 In view of the reasons stated in the Applications, the same are disposed of with a direction to the Applicant to file signed and duly attested affidavits with the petitions within a period of one week of lifting of the lockdown.
Applications stand disposed of.
O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 254/2019 & I.A. 4533/2020 O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 255/2019 & I.A. 4535/2020 O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 256/2019 & I.A. 4537/2020 O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 257/2019 & I.A. 4539/2020 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. Present Applications have been moved seeking extension of the interim protection granted by this Court vide its order dated 06.09.2019 for a period of six weeks.
Applications have been filed on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that taking suo motu cognizance in W.P.(C) 3037/2020, directions were issued by the Court that all interim orders which were subsisting on 16.03.2020 and were to expire thereafter, would stand automatically extended to 15.06.2020 or until further orders by the Court except for any orders to the contrary being passed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Gandhi informs the Court that the deadline of 15.06.2020 has been extended and now the interim orders have been directed to continue till 15.07.2020. Secondly, it is submitted that during the period when the judgment was reserved, a Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed against the Petitioner and was admitted by the NCLT vide its order dated 02.03.2020 in Insolvency Petition No.(IB) 2240(ND)/2019 and an Interim Resolution Profession (IRP) has been appointed. The erstwhile Managing Director of the Petitioner has challenged the said order before the NCLAT by filing an Appeal. Vide order dated 12.03.2020, NCLAT, after noting the submissions that the parties have reached a settlement, directed that the IRP will not constitute Committee of Creditors. It was further directed that the IRP will ensure that the Company remains a going concern.
Issue notice.
Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. She submits that the directions in the order referred to by the Petitioner would not apply to the present case and is meant to apply in matters which are still pending in the Court and have been adjourned to a future date.
In the opinion of this Court, the directions referred to above are intended to apply to pending matters where interim orders were passed and the matters have been or are being adjourned to a future date. The directions are not intended to apply to cases where matters are being heard by the Courts on the merits of the case and are being finally decided.
Insofar as the present case is concerned, petitions were heard on merits and judgment was reserved and thereafter the judgment was pronounced on 12.06.2020.
Petitions were dismissed by this Court and as a consequence of the dismissal of the petitions, the stay order was vacated. In my opinion, the directions referred to by the Petitioner, would not apply to the present situation.
Insofar as the appellate proceedings before the NCLAT are concerned, this Court cannot take cognizance of the said proceedings, since the judgment had already been pronounced in the present petitions.
Applications have no merits and are accordingly dismissed.
JYOTI SINGH, J JUNE 19, 2020 rd