Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Marine Drive Hospitality And Realty Pvt ... vs Recovery Officer, Drt-1, New Delhi & Anr on 28 September, 2020

Author: Hima Kohli

Bench: Hima Kohli, Subramonium Prasad

$~9
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 7035/2020
      MARINE DRIVE HOSPITALITY AND REALTY PVT LTD &
      ORS.                                             ..... Petitioners
                       Through     Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                       with Mr. Samir Malik, Ms. Bani Dikshit and
                       Mr. Prashant Rana, Advocates.

                    versus
    RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT-1, NEW DELHI & ANR..Respondents
                    Through     Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Advocate with
                    Mr. R.P. Agrawal and Ms. Manisha Agarwal,
                    Advocates for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
              ORDER

% 28.09.2020 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING CM No. 23993/2020 & 23994/2020 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) No. 7035/2020 & CM No. 23995/2020 (stay)

1. The petitioners seek a stay of the attachment order dated 20.3.2019, the subsequently passed similar orders as also a Show Cause Notice dated 27.8.2020 for issuance of warrants of arrest against them by the learned RO, DRT-I.

2. At the outset, Mr. Nandrajog, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners concedes that the counsel on record has erred by arraying the Recovery Officer, DRT-I as respondent No.1 in the Memo of parties. Respondent No.1 is directed to be deleted from the array of respondents.

Learned Senior Advocate further states that there have been subsequent developments after filing of the present petition inasmuch as pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.8.2020 issued by the Recovery Officer and the petitioners appearing through their counsel before the Recovery Officer on 4.9.2020, warrants of arrest have been issued against all the petitioners on 17.9.2020, which fact has come to the notice of the petitioners only yesterday.

3. Mr. Bansal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of contesting respondent No.2 states on instructions from his briefing counsel that in the Notice to Show Cause, the petitioners were called upon to appear in person on 4.9.2020, which they had failed to do.

4. Be that as it may, as Mr. Nandrajog, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners states on instructions that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present petition while reserving their right to seek appropriate legal recourse against the orders passed by the RO, including the warrants of arrest dated 17.9.2020, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed, alongwith the pending applications. The right of the petitioners to seek appropriate legal recourse against the orders passed by the RO and the warrant of arrest dated 17.9.2020 is reserved, while reserving the right of the respondent No.2 to take all the pleas available to it in law.

5. The petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2020/mw W.P.(C) 7035/2020 Page 2 of 2