W.P.(C) No.14190/2021

Page 1 of 8

$~16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(C) 14190/2021

EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

COMPANY LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Adv. with

Ms. Manisha Agrawal & Ms.

Snigdha Agarwal, Advs.

versus

NISHILAND PARK LTD & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Kunal

Mittal & Mr. Arjit Sharma, Advs.

for R1to3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying

as under: -

“A)

issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ/direction/order for quashing the proceedings of

MA No. 33/202l in Appeal No. 280/2019 titled as

Nishiland Park Ltd. &Ors.;

B)

set aside the Order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the

Hon'ble DRAT in MA No. 33/2021 in Appeal No.

280/2019 titled as 'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Company Limited vs Nishiland Park Ltd. &Ors.;

C)

direct DRT-1, Delhi to dispose off the OA No.

Digitally Signed

By:DUSHYANT

RAWAL

Signing Date:06.10.2023

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) No.14190/2021

Page 2 of 8

280/1999 titled as ‘Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction

Limited vs. Nishiland Park Ltd. & Ors.’ in a reasonable

time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, keeping in

view the fact that the said OA is pending adjudication

for more than 22 years:

D)

costs of the petition be allowed to the Petitioner; and”

2.

This case has a chequered history. The Tourism Finance

Corporation of India Ltd. (hereafter ‘the TFCI’) had extended

certain financial facilities to respondent no.1 (hereafter ‘the

borrower’). It is the TFCI’s case that the borrower defaulted in its

repayment obligations. Consequently, the TFCI filed the Original

Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to

Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (now known as Recovery

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993) for recovery of the amount due

from the borrower. The said application was registered as O.A.

280/1999.

3.

The said application, O.A 280/1999, was dismissed in default

on 27.02.2015. In the meantime, the TFCI had assigned its financial

asset (being the amount recoverable in respect of financial facilities

extended to the borrower) to the petitioner (hereafter ‘Edelweiss’)

4.

Thereafter, an application was filed before the learned Debts

Recovery Tribunal (hereafter ‘the DRT’) for restoration of the OA

which was dismissed in default on 27.02.2015. The said application

was dismissed as well. This led Edelweiss to file an appeal (Regular

Appeal No. 280/2019) before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal (hereafter ‘the DRAT’). The same was disposed of by an

order dated 04.08.2020. The learned DRAT held that the OA was

Digitally Signed

By:DUSHYANT

RAWAL

Signing Date:06.10.2023

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) No.14190/2021

Page 3 of 8

liable to be restored. The learned DRAT was further of the view that

there was no dispute regarding the principal amount owed by

borrower against the loan advanced by the TFCI and therefore,

directed the learned DRT to issue a recovery certificate for a sum of

₹7,96,49,202/- in favour of the TFCI. The learned DRAT had noted

that the OA was filed for the said sum along with pendente lite and

future interest at contractual rates, however, the learned DRAT did

not directed issuance of a recovery certificate in respect of the

pendente lite and future interest and confined the recovery certificate

to ₹7,96,49,202/- and left the remaining contentious issues to be

decided by the learned DRT. Paragraph no.17 of the said order is

relevant and set out below: -

“17.

The DRT shall now take up the O.A. on its b