← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/3661/2019

Sedona Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And ANR. v. Reserve Bank Of India And ORS.

2019-04-15Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao2 pages

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3661/2019, CM Nos. 16805-16806/2019 SEDONA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Prashant Jain, Advs.

versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Ramesh Babu, Ms. Manisha Singh and Ms. Swati Setia, Advs. for RBI Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Jatin Teotia, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 15.04.2019 CM Nos. 16805-16806/2019 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3661/2019 1.

On the last date of hearing the matter was adjourned to enable the counsel for the respondents to take instructions. Mr. Vijay Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that vide communication dated February 04, 2019, the respondent No.1 had sought the petitioners' reply to the fact that the Company was functioning as NBFC without obtaining Certificate of Registration from RBI under Section 45 IA of the RBI Act which is a violation of provisions of Section 45-IA(L) of the RBI Act and

attracts penalties under sub-section 4(A) of Section 58 B of RBI Act. A reply to the same has been given to the RBI, but no final order has been passed.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the RBI has instructions to state that a decision on the reply to the communication dated February 04, 2019 shall be taken within four weeks and the same shall be communicated to the petitioners with the same period of time. He states that if any further information is required to be called from the petitioner, the respondent No.1 shall do so. The said statement is taken on record. 3.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Vijay Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner states that nothing further survives in this writ petition. The same is disposed of. 4.

Liberty is with the petitioners to challenge any order passed to the prejudice of the petitioners, in accordance with law. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J APRIL 15, 2019/aky