XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1096 · Decided: 27-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1096
1096
XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER
v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY
PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS
(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 –  Appeal
arising out of impugned judgment passed by High Court by which
the High Court dismissed writ petition preferred by appellants
confirming the order passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
(DRAT), Delhi passed in Appeal No.82/2020 – DRAT, Delhi disposed
of said appeal preferred by respondents maintaining the order of
attachment of share held by appellant no.1 during pendency of
Appeal No.1/2020 – However, DRAT also directed and observed
that in the meanwhile recovery proceedings will go on before the
Recovery Officer who will try to recover the decretal amount in
accordance with provisions of s.25 of the Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptcy Act – Appeal No.1/2020 pending consideration by Debts
Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur – According to respondent no.1
approximately a sum of Rs.29 crores was due and payable by
appellant no.1, which is disputed by appellants, more particularly
appellant no.1 – Case of appellant no.1 in Appeal No.1/2020 that
the amount due and payable by appellant no.1 had been paid and
the question was of discharge of debt in the execution proceedings
– However, at the suggestion of the Court, broad consensus arrived
at between the parties – Appeal accordingly disposed of, on such
terms.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6518
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9260
of 2021.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Suruchi Kasliwal, Shyam Aggarwal,
Amit Pawan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Ms. Shivangi, Advs. for the
Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1097
K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Amarjit Singh Bedi, R.P. Agrawal,
Ms. Manisha Agrawal, Ms. Pragati Agrawal, Ms. Priyal Modi, Varun
Chandiok, Ms. Riya Seth, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and
order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9260/2021 by which
the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the
appellants herein confirming the judgment and order passed by the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi passed in Appeal No.82/
2020.
3. By judgment and order dated 9.8.2021, the DRAT, Delhi has
disposed of the said appeal preferred by the respondents herein
maintaining the order of attachment of share held by appellant no.1 as
XLO India Limited during the pendency of Appeal No.1/2020.  However,
the DRAT has also directed and observed that in the meanwhile recovery
proceedings will go on before the Recovery Officer who will try to recover
the decretal amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of
the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
4. We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. V. Viswanathan, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 herein.
5. It is not in dispute that Appeal No.1/2020 is pending consideration
by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur. However, at the same
time, according to respondent no.1 herein approximately a sum of Rs.29
crores is due and payable by appellant no.1, which is disputed by Shri
Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, more particularly on behalf of appellant no.1.
6. It appears that the case on behalf of appellant no.1 in Appeal
No.1/2020 seems to be that the amount due and payable by appellant
no.1 has been paid and the question is of discharge of debt in the execution
proceedings.
7. The aforesaid is disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent no.1.
XLO INDIA LIMITED v. INTERNATIONAL ASSET
RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and at the suggestion by the Court, there is broad consensus
between the learned counsel for the parties to dispose of the present
appeal in the following terms -
i)
that appellant no.1 to deposit a further sum of Rs.5 crores
with the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur within a period o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.