Supreme Court of India
XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS on 27 October 2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
AXLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER
v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANYPRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS
B(Civil Appeal No. 6518 of 2021)
OCTOBER 27, 2021.
[M. R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – s.25 – Appealarising out of impugned judgment passed by High Court by whichCthe High Court dismissed writ petition preferred by appellantsconfirming the order passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT), Delhi passed in Appeal No.82/2020 – DRAT, Delhi disposedof said appeal preferred by respondents maintaining the order ofattachment of share held by appellant no.1 during pendency ofDAppeal No.1/2020 – However, DRAT also directed and observedthat in the meanwhile recovery proceedings will go on before theRecovery Officer who will try to recover the decretal amount inaccordance with provisions of s.25 of the Recovery of Debts andBankruptcy Act – Appeal No.1/2020 pending consideration by DebtsRecovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur – According to respondent no.1Eapproximately a sum of Rs.29 crores was due and payable byappellant no.1, which is disputed by appellants, more particularlyappellant no.1 – Case of appellant no.1 in Appeal No.1/2020 thatthe amount due and payable by appellant no.1 had been paid andthe question was of discharge of debt in the execution proceedingsF– However, at the suggestion of the Court, broad consensus arrivedat between the parties – Appeal accordingly disposed of, on suchterms.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6518of 2021.GFrom the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2021 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9260of 2021.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Suruchi Kasliwal, Shyam Aggarwal,Amit Pawan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Ms. Shivangi, Advs. for theHAppellants.
K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Amarjit Singh Bedi, R.P. Agrawal,Ms. Manisha Agrawal, Ms. Pragati Agrawal, Ms. Priyal Modi, VarunChandiok, Ms. Riya Seth, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment andorder dated 06.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature forRajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9260/2021 by whichthe High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by theappellants herein confirming the judgment and order passed by the DebtsRecovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi passed in Appeal No.82/2020.
3. By judgment and order dated 9.8.2021, the DRAT, Delhi hasdisposed of the said appeal preferred by the respondents hereinmaintaining the order of attachment of share held by appellant no.1 asXLO India Limited during the pendency of Appeal No.1/2020. However,the DRAT has also directed and observed that in the meanwhile recoveryproceedings will go on before the Recovery Officer who will try to recoverthe decretal amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 ofthe Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
4. We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. V. Viswanathan, learnedsenior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 herein.
5. It is not in dispute that Appeal No.1/2020 is pending considerationby the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur. However, at the sametime, according to respondent no.1 herein approximately a sum of Rs.29crores is due and payable by appellant no.1, which is disputed by ShriDhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of theappellants, more particularly on behalf of appellant no.1.
6. It appears that the case on behalf of appellant no.1 in AppealNo.1/2020 seems to be that the amount due and payable by appellantno.1 has been paid and the question is of discharge of debt in the executionproceedings.
7. The aforesaid is disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalfof respondent no.1.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties and at the suggestion by the Court, there is broad consensusbetween the learned counsel for the parties to dispose of the presentappeal in the following terms -
i)that appellant no.1 to deposit a further sum of Rs.5 croresBwith the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur within a period offour weeks from today, without prejudice to the rights andcontentions of appellant no.1 in the pending Appeal No.1/2020;
ii)that respondent no.1 may be permitted to withdraw theCamount of Rs.5 crores to be deposited by appellant no.1, asobserved hereinabove along with Rs.1.53 crores withinterest accrued thereon which has been deposited byappellant no.1 as a pre-deposit while preferring the AppealNo.1/2020; Diii)that respondent no.1 may also be permitted to withdrawthe amount of Rs.25 lakhs which is lying with the RecoveryOfficer;
iv)that the withdrawal of the aforesaid amount (Rs.5 crores +Rs.1.53 crores with interest accrued thereon + Rs. 25 lakhs)Eby respondent no.1 shall be without prejudice to the rightsand contentions of the respective parties in Appeal No.1/2020 as well as subject to the ultimate outcome of theAppeal No.1/2020; v)the DRT, Jaipur may be directed to finally decide and disposeFof Appeal No.1/2020 at the earliest and preferably within aperiod of eight weeks from today.9. In view of the above broad consensus between the learnedcounsel for the respective parties recorded hereinabove, we dispose ofthe present appeal as under - Ga)That appellant no.1 shall deposit a further sum of Rs.5 croreswith the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur within a period offour weeks from today, which shall be without prejudice tothe rights and contentions of the respective parties in AppealNo.1/2020 and on such deposit, the respondent no.1 ispermitted to withdraw the said amount;H
b)that respondent no.1 is permitted to withdraw a sum ofARs.1.53 crores with interest accrued thereon which appellantno.1 has deposited as pre-deposit while preferring the AppealNo.1/2020;
c)that respondent no.1 is also permitted to withdraw the amountof Rs.25 lakhs which is lying with the Recovery Officer;B
d)that the aforesaid withdrawal by respondent no.1 shall bewithout prejudice to the rights and contentions of therespective parties in Appeal No.1/2020 and subject to theultimate outcome of the Appeal No.1/2020 and that in caseappellant no.1 succeeds and the order is passed in appealCagainst the respondents, the respondents will pay the amountpaid in excess, if any, within a period of four weeks toappellant no.1; e)the DRT, Jaipur is directed to finally decide and dispose ofAppeal No.1 in accordance with law and on its own meritsDwithin a period of eight weeks from today; f)either of the parties to place copy of the present order beforethe DRT, Jaipur within a period of one week from today; g)the questions of law, if any, are kept open which may beconsidered in appropriate case;E
h)the order of attachment of shares held by appellant no.1, asconfirmed by the DRAT is directed to be continued till thefinal disposal of Appeal No.1/2020. Till Appeal No.1/2020is decided and disposed of within the time stipulatedhereinabove, the further recovery proceedings are directedFto be stayed;
i)It is also reported that the appeal by respondent no.1 againstthe order of pre-deposit of Rs.1.53 crores is challengedbefore the DRAT. In view of the aforesaid, the said appealpreferred by respondent no.1 before the DRAT challengingGthe order of pre-deposit stands disposed of.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
H