The Court emphasized the maintenance of status quo during pending proceedings, dismissing the request for expedited disposal.

ORDER

Heard Mr. Deepak Khosla, learned counsel, who besides being a counsel is also one of the contesting parties. The Miscellaneous Application is filed by one of the contesting parties with the following prayer:- “a) Direct that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court may take the proceedings initiated by it by the impugned order dated 15- 02-2010 passed by it under sub-Section (2) of Section 340 of the CrPC to their close expeditiously, and on ex parte basis, and the adjudication of which proceedings be completed within a period of 4 weeks, or within such other short period this Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 2. The counsel would then refer to the judgment passed by this Court Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.10.17 17:31:55 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified on 08.05.2014 in the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6873/2010 to contend that the prayer made in the miscellaneous application should be granted. The Relevant paragraph No.23 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “23. After considering the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to either enforce orders dated 31.1.2008 passed by the CLB or orders dated 11.4.2008 passed by the High Court. Fact remains that there has been a complete deadlock, as far as affairs of the Company are concerned. The project has not taken off. It is almost dead at present. Unless the parties re-concile, there is no chance for a joint venture i.e. to develop the resort, as per the MOU dated 21.12.2005. It is only after the decision of CLB, whereby the respective rights of the parties are crystallised, it would be possible to know about the future of this project. Even the Company in question is also defunct at present as it has no other business activity or venture. In a situation like this, we are of the opinion that more appropriate orders would be to direct the parties to maintain staus quo in the meantime, during the pendency of the aforesaid company petition before the CLB. However, we make it clear that if any exigency arises necessitating some interim orders, it would be open to the parties to approach the CLB for appropriate directions.” 3. Having considered the circumstances here and the nature of the prayer that is made, we see no reason to pass any order directing expeditious disposal of the pending proceeding by the High Court. The application for modification of Court’s order is dismissed. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed. [DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT] COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR