Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. ... vs Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. on 19 May, 2022
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7140-7141/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-11-2020
in ARB.A.(COMM.) No. 13/2020 04-02-2022 in RP No. 71/2021 passed by
the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 64995/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 59815/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 58602/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
Date : 19-05-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate
Mr. CS Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate
Ms. Misha, Advocate
Mr. Siddhant Kant, Advocate
Ms. Mahima Sareen, Advocate
Mr. Abhilash Chaudhary, Advocate
Ms. Moulshree Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Daksh Kadian, Advocate
Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv.
Mr. Essaji Yahanvati, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Nayar, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Ajaypal Singh, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2022.05.21
Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR
14:04:44 IST
Reason:
Mr. Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Prasad Lotikar, Advocate
Mr. Rohan R., Advocate
Mr. D.N. Ray, Advocate
2
Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, Adv.
Mr. Amir Arsiwala, AOR
Mr. Dhaval Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Farzeen Pardiwalla, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG
Mr. Abhishek Swaroop, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Manish, AOR (IDBI)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the only grievance raised in the instant SLPs is with respect to the following sentence occurring in paragraph 86 of the judgment dated 18.11.2020:
“The said deposit shall remain subject to further orders to be passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.” Mr. Parag Tripathi and Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned Senior Advocates for the respondents. However, submit that the sentence ought not to be deleted and that they are contesting the submissions made by Mr. Salve.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the IDBI also reiterates the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. Tripathi.
It must be stated at this stage that the application for impleadment has been filed by the petitioner seeking to implead (1)Canara Bank, (2)Corporation Bank (now merged with Union Bank of India), (3)Indian Bank, (4)IDBI Bank and (5)Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.3
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for (1)Canara Bank, (3)Indian Bank, (4)IDBI Bank submits that he has no objection to the prayer for impleadment but prays for some time to put in response on behalf of his clients.
We, therefore, grant to the respondents as well as the parties who are sought to be impleaded, time of four weeks to file their response. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. By order dated 06.05.2022, interim directions in terms of Paragraph 8 of the SLP were granted. Apprehension is expressed that the concerned amounts may be taken out of the TRA accounts. Mr. Salve, learned Senior Advocate fairly makes a statement that instead of passing any directions by the Court, he has advised his client not to touch the amount lying in said account. List for further consideration on 21.07.2022.
(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER