Khadi Ashram v. Arun Kumar Jha & ANR

COCP-1180-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

(1) COCP No. 1180 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 07, 2020 Khadi Ashram ..........PETITIONER

VERSUS

Arun Kumar Jha and another ........RESPONDENTS

(2) EA No. 22 of 2016 in CWP No. 5197 of 2014 Khadi Ashram ..........PETITIONER

VERSUS

Khadi & Village Industries Commission and another .......RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ved Priya Malik, Advocate for the petitioner in COCP No. 1180 of 2016.

Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for the respondents.

Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the applicant in EA No. 22 of 2016.

Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in EA No. 22 of 2016.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Heard.

Order dated 29.02.2016 was passed in CWP No. 5197 of 2014 as follows:

"Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that though the amount of loan has been repaid, however, the accounts are being checked and in case no other amount is JYOTI 2020.02.11 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP-1180-2016 found due against the petitioner, the documents of the properties kept as security shall be returned to the petitioner . The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from today.

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms".

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that documents of the petitioners have not been released as a sum of `12,81,42,090/- has been found due against the petitioners as on 31.03.2018 and the matter has been referred to the Tribunal as per the notification dated 21.12.2018, copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure RX/1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appointment of the Tribunal has been stayed by the Government of India and the special Commercial Court at Gurugram has already decided the matter regarding liability of petitioners to pay third party dues. He further submits that the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 21.12.2018 by filing a writ petition No.3610 of 2017, which is still pending. As the matter relating to the outstanding amount, is still pending and is subject matter of writ petition No. 3610 of 2017, these petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to get these revived after the decision of aforesaid writ petition or to file fresh one, if so required.

Rule discharged.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE February 07, 2020 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JYOTI 2020.02.11 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document