Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajasekhar V.K vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 2020
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3302/2020 & CM APPL. 11575/2020, 11926/2020 &
12422/2020
RAJASEKHAR V.K ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhijeet Sinha, Ms.Vandana
Sehgal, Advs.
Mr.S.D. Singh & Mr.Rahul Kumar &
Mr.Jitender Singh, Advs. for
Intervener.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Chetan Sharma, ASC &
Mr.Harish V Shankar, CGSC for UOI
with Mr.Sahaj Garg & Mr.Akshay
Gadeock, Mr.Varun Kishore, Advs.
Mr.Aman Vachher, Mr.Ashutosh
Dubey & Mr.Abhishek Chauhan,
Advs. in CM No. 12422/2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 19.11.2020 This petition has been heard through video conferencing. This petition has been filed primarily feeling aggrieved of the orders dated 30.04.2020 and 12.05.2020 issued by the respondent no. 1 making various transfers of Members and Acting President of the National Company Law Tribunal.
As rightly contended by the learned ASG, the petition was primarily to challenge the order of transfer made with respect to the petitioner herein.
Admittedly, the petitioner has since accepted the transfer in spite of the interim order granted in his favour by this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has accepted the transfer without prejudice to his rights and contentions and only to ensure that the work of the NCLT does not suffer inasmuch as the only Member of the NCLT Kolkata had since retired and the work of the Tribunal was suffering.
The learned counsel for the intervener also submits that larger questions of law have been raised in the present petition, including those affecting the rights of the intervener and on the appointment of respondent no. 2 as the Acting President of the Tribunal.
Be that as it may, as the petitioner has now accepted the transfer, the present petition is disposed of leaving all questions of law open to be adjudicated in a proper proceeding. This court does not deem it appropriate to consider these questions on the petition filed by the petitioner. The intervener shall be at liberty to agitate the same by way of an independent petition, if so advised. The petitioner shall also not be prejudiced merely due to the disposal of the present petition.
There shall be no order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J NOVEMBER 19, 2020/rv