National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Ultratech Cement Ltd vs The Secretary Competition Commission ... on 9 May, 2022
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,
NEW DELHI
I.A. No. 1279 of 2022 in TA(AT)(Compt.) No. 14 of 2017
(Old Appeal No. 52 of 2016)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
Competition Commission of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Advocate
For Respondent: Shama Nargis (Deputy Director Law, CCI, RI)
Mr. Rahul Goel, Mr. Paritosh Dhawan, Ms. Anu
Monga, Advocates
Mr. Anand K., Advocate for R-9
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode) 09.05.2022: According to the Learned Counsel for the Applicant in I.A. No. 1279 of 2022 in TA(AT)(Compt.) No. 14 of 2017 (Old Appeal No. 52 of 2016), this 'Tribunal' has a 'lien' on such FDR under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant/Applicant seeks necessary direction from this Tribunal issuing the FDR to be renewed with the different scheduled Bank. However, the Appellant/Applicant undertake to submit the duly renewed FDR for a period of one year with standing instruction to review.
Learned Counsel referred to the order of this 'Tribunal' dated 04.05.2022.
It cannot be gain said that this 'Tribunal' had directed the Fixed Deposit Receipt be renewed for one year with standing instructions to the Bank to continue to Auto-renew for same period. Before expiry of one year as mentioned above, 'Registry' should still remind the Bank to Auto-renew for same period. During the Interregnum, if any judicial orders are passed, the 'Office of the Registry' can get in touch with the Bank, accordingly. I.A. No. 1279 of 2022 in TA(AT)(Compt.) No. 14 of 2017 (Old Appeal No. 52 of 2016) 1 There is no two opinion of a prime fact that the instant FDR receipt in the subject matter in issue is renewed from time to time for the year 2016 onwards, as informed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant. Considering the fact that the SBI in which the FDR is lodged and the Fixed Deposit is also lying with the Bank (Nationalised Bank) and at this point of time this 'Tribunal' is not inclined to schedule to the request made by the 'Appellant' to change the Bank and to deposit the amount in question in FDR in any scheduled Bank as pressed for.
Viewed in that perspective, the instant I.A. No. 1279 of 2022 is dismissed. No Costs.
[Justice M.Venugopal] Member (Judicial) [Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) shashi/gc I.A. No. 1279 of 2022 in TA(AT)(Compt.) No. 14 of 2017 (Old Appeal No. 52 of 2016) 2