Skip to content


Icici Bank Limited & Anr vs.m/s Dsc Limited & Ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
AppellantIcici Bank Limited & Anr
RespondentM/S Dsc Limited & Ors
Excerpt:
.....no.2 and respondents no.1 to 8 accept notice and state that they have no objection to the present application being allowed. w.p.(c)4976/2016 page 1 of 4 3. for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. amended memo of parties be filed by deleting the name of the petitioner no.1/icici bank ltd. and substituting the same with phoenix arc pvt. ltd. needful shall be done within one week, with a copy to the counsels for petitioner no.2 and respondents no.1 to 8.4. the application is disposed of. cm no.36786/2016 (joint application by p-1 and r-1 to 8 u/sec.151 cpc) 1. the present application has been filed by the petitioner no.1 and respondents no.1 to 8 stating inter alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have been able to arrive at.....
Judgment:

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4976/2016 ICICI BANK LIMITED & ANR ........ Petitioner

s Through : Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suresh Dutt Dobhal and Mr. Yugank Goel, Advocate for Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Arun Bhandari, proxy counsel for H.P. Bhandari, Advocate for P-2. versus M/S DSC LIMITED & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS

Through : Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Khurana, Advocate for R-1 to 8. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER

1810.2016 CM No.36799/2016 (by Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. for substitution in place of petitioner No.1/ICICI Bank Ltd. u/O XXII R-10 CPC) 1. The present application has been filed by the applicant stating inter alia that the petitioner No.1 has assigned the debt in question to it in terms of the Assignment Agreement dated 20.9.2016 (Annexure-2). Resultantly, deletion of the name of the original petitioner No.1/ICICI Bank Ltd. and substitution thereof with Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., has been prayed for.

2. Notice. Counsels for the petitioner No.2 and respondents No.1 to 8 accept notice and state that they have no objection to the present application being allowed. W.P.(C)4976/2016 Page 1 of 4 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Amended memo of parties be filed by deleting the name of the petitioner No.1/ICICI Bank Ltd. and substituting the same with Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Needful shall be done within one week, with a copy to the counsels for petitioner No.2 and respondents No.1 to 8.

4. The application is disposed of. CM No.36786/2016 (joint application by P-1 and R-1 to 8 u/Sec.151 CPC) 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner No.1 and respondents No.1 to 8 stating inter alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have been able to arrive at a settlement and pursuant thereto, they had filed a joint application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (in short ‘the DRT-I’) in OA No.166/2016, placing on record the terms and conditions of the settlement. Based on the said settlement, an order dated 3.10.2016, has been passed by the DRT-I, taking on record the compromise application and passing a consent decree on the agreed terms and conditions. A copy of the order dated 3.10.2016 has been handed over by the counsels for the petitioner No.1 and the respondents No.1 to 8 and is taken on record.

2. Counsels for the parties state that all the terms and conditions incorporated in the joint compromise application filed before the DRT-I may be read as a part of the present application and the petition may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties and recorded in the said application (Annexure-I).

3. The application has been signed by the Associate Vice President of the petitioner No.1, the Managing Director of the respondent No.1 and the W.P.(C)4976/2016 Page 2 of 4 Directors of the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 as also by the respondents No.5, 6, 7 and 8 in their personal capacity. The application is supported by the affidavits of the signatories to the application. Enclosed with the application is a copy of the Joint Compromise Application filed by the parties before the DRT-I (Annexure-1), and copies of the Board Resolutions authorizing the signatories of the petitioner No.1 and the respondents No.1 to 4 to sign the application on their behalf.

4. In view of the fact that counsels for the parties jointly state that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition in terms of the terms and conditions recorded in the compromise application filed in OA No.166/2016(Annexure-I), the present application is allowed and disposed of. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement recorded in the said application. CM No.31394/2016 (by R-1 to 8 u/Sec.151 CPC for extension of time to handover possession of the immovable property) 1. Mr. Nigam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 to 8 states, on instructions, that he does not wish to press this application as it has been rendered infructuous in the light of the settlement arrived at with the petitioner No.1.

2. Mr. Vashisht, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner No.1 states that in view of the subsequent developments and the settlement arrived at between the petitioner No.1 and the respondents No.1 to 8, the petitioner No.1 no longer wishes to insist that the respondents No.1 to 8 be directed to hand over the keys of property bearing No.3, Golf Links, New Delhi to the Registrar General of this Court, as recorded in the order dated 31.5.2016. He however states that this is without prejudice to the right of W.P.(C)4976/2016 Page 3 of 4 the petitioner No.1 to seek its remedies against the respondents No.1 to 8, in the event they commit any default of the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties and recorded in CM No.36786/2016.

3. The application is accordingly disposed of. W.P.(C) 4976/2016 1. Mr. Vashisht, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner No.1 states that in view of the settlement arrived at with the respondents No.1 to 8, he does not wish to press the present petition any further.

2. Counsel for the petitioner No.2/Bank states that his client has already initiated legal action against the respondents No.1 to 9, and a petition is pending before the DRT and therefore, he too does not wish to pursue the present petition any further.

3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. OCTOBER18 2016 sk/mk HIMA KOHLI, J W.P.(C)4976/2016 Page 4 of 4


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //