Marriott Hottels India Private Limited v. State Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8931 of 2016 (O&M) Decided on : 21.11.2016 Marriott Hotels India Private Limited . . . Petitioner

Versus

State Bank of India and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Anand Chhibber, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raksh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. H.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Sumit Jain Ratia, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.7.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, before the District Magistrate, UT, Chandigarh, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Jawala Ram 2016.11.23 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 8931 of 2016 (O&M) [ 2 ] Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short 'the Act'), whereby, respondents No.1 to 3 willing to take possession of the property i.e. Plot No.6, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, comprising of land measuring 12694.422 sq. yards and building thereon, comprising of hotel infrastructure and other assets i.e. Plant and machinery, equipment, appliances, furniture and fixtures, presently known as JW Marriot Hotel, Chandigarh. 2.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions stated that during the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court has allowed CM No.12277-CWP of 2016 vide order dated September 30, 2016, and impleaded Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. as party-respondent No.7, who has taken over 70% debt equity of respondent No.5. It was, thus, stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to raise all the pleas before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with law.

3.

In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to it, in accordance with law. 4.

In view of the withdrawal of main petition, no further orders in CM Nos. 8768 & 9208-CWP of 2016 are called for and the same are disposed of as such.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) November 21, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2016.11.23 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh