In the first call, hearing of the Company Application No.570 of 2011 was deferred/pass-over at the request made on behalf of the learned advocate for the applicant.
2. Before the present application, i.e. Company Application No.570 of 2011, could be taken-up for hearing in second call (since in first call pass-over was granted), another matter i.e. OLR No.245 of 2011 (which has been filed in respect of the same property which is the subject matter of Company Application No.570 of 2011) is already ordered to be adjourned to 1.3.2012 (when it was called-out and taken-up for hearing in the first call) in view of the intimation that Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent No.5 has filed leave-note.
3. After the said matter i.e. OLR No.245 of 2011 was adjourned, now when present application i.e. Company Application No.570 of 2011 is called-out and taken-up for hearing in second call, Mr. Pahwa, learned advocate for the applicant, and Ms.Yajnik, learned counsel for the OL, are present.
4. Ms.
Yajnik, learned counsel for the OL, has submitted that in view of the details mentioned in para-3 and 4 of the report dated 11.1.2012 filed in Company Application No.570 of 2011 (page-25 to 30), present application is required to be heard with OLR No.245 of 2011, which aspect is mentioned in para-5 of the said report dated 11.1.2012.
5. Therefore, though OLR No.245 of 2011 is already ordered to be adjourned, the papers were again taken in hands (only for verifying the facts) and on comparison, it is noticed that there is substantial differences and discrepancies between the description of the parties who are impleaded in Company Application No.570 of 2011 as against the parties impleaded in OLR No.245 of 2011.
6. In the Company Application No.570 of 2011, except the OL, any other party is not impleaded whereas in OLR No.245 of 2011, there are five parties, which are impleaded.
7. On further examination, it has also come to the notice that the applicant of present Company Application No.570 of 2011 i.e. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited ["ARCIL" for short] has appointed a Power of Attorney to conduct the proceedings on its behalf and accordingly, in the OLR No.245 of 2011, the said Power of Attorney has been impleaded as party respondent No.1.
8. It is not on record as to whether the said Power of Attorney granted by ARCIL to Peagasus Resolution Services Pvt. Ltd. has been cancelled or withdrawn by the ARCIL or not. Any intimation to such effect does not appear to have been given to the office of OL. Resultantly, it appears that it has so happened that in some of the proceedings, ARCIL has appeared whereas in some other proceedings, ARCIL has appeared through the said Power of Attorney, which has created lot of confusion in conducting the proceedings and which is likely to lead to some conflicting claims at a later stage.
9. Ms.
Yajnik, learned counsel for the OL, has requested for time to verify the factual aspect, which has emerged during today's hearing.
10. Mr.
Pahwa, learned advocate for the applicant, also has requested for some time to take necessary instructions and necessary clarifications.
Hence, Company Application No.570 of 2011 is adjourned to 3.2.2012.
A copy of this order shall be maintained in OLR No. 245 of 2011.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc