Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Diamond Entertainment ... vs Religare Finvest Limited Through Its ... on 22 December, 2022
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17417/2022 & CM APPL. 55452/2022 -Stay.
M/S DIAMOND ENTERTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
& ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Pranav K. Sharma and Mr. Sahil
Nagpal and Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advs.
versus
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Singh and Mr. Satish
Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 22.12.2022
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties point out that paragraph no.4 of this Court's order dated 20.12.2022 incorrectly records in the last line that vide the order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Rev. Pet. No. 296/20222, the order dated 19.10.2022 was stayed, whereas it is the order dated 14.10.2022 which was stayed. The said statement is taken on record.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking setting aside of the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in MCA No. 521/2021. One of the primary contentions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that once, there was a status quo order restraining the respondent from taking any action qua the subject Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:23.12.2022 12:57:41 property was in force, it was not open for the respondent to initiate any proceedings for taking possession of the subject property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. In support of his plea that a status quo order continues to operate as on date as it has neither been vacated nor been modified, learned senior counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to the various orders passed in CS (OS) 280/2021. He submits that even though the impleadment application preferred by the petitioners seeking impleadment of the respondent herein in the aforesaid suit stands rejected, the interim order directing the said respondent to maintain status quo qua the subject property is continuing by way of the orders passed in I.A. No. 17376/2021 as also in the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, preferred by the petitioners in OMP (I) (COMM.) 9/2022.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, seeks to contend that once the I.A. No. 17375/2021 seeking impleadment of the present respondent in those proceedings stands rejected, there is no question of continuation of any interim order restraining the respondent from taking any action qua the subject property, as on date. He further submits that there are no orders passed in OMP (I) (COMM.) 9/2022 to this effect either.
5. Having perused the orders passed in CS (OS) 280/2021, as placed on record, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate for the parties to seek clarification in this regard from the Bench dealing with CS (OS) 280/2021 as to whether the order granting status quo Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:23.12.2022 12:57:41 qua the subject property against respondent no.5 is continuing as on date.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that a review petition, preferred by the respondent no. 5, is already listed before the Bench of HMJ Neena Bansal Krishna on 05.01.2023, which had passed the order in C.S. (OS) 280/2021 and O.M.P.(I)(Comm.) 9/2022, and therefore, pray that hearing in the present petition be deferred to enable them to seek clarification on this aspect as well.
7. List on 09.01.2023.
REKHA PALLI, J DECEMBER 22, 2022 acm Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:23.12.2022 12:57:41