PNP 1 WP6639-5.9.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6639 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6715 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6742 OF 2010 Dynamic Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. versus Union of India and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Shah and Ms. Ritu Yadav i/b Raval Shah and Co. for the Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. Shrikrishna R. Ganbavale for Respondent No.1 in all the Petitions. Mr. Rajeev K. Pandey with Mr. Sanjiv Punalekar i./b PRS Legal for Respondent No.5 in all the Petitions. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for the State. Mr. Arif Y. Bookwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Thakkar and Mr. Kalpesh Parekh i/b Pragna Thakkar & Co. for Respondent No.3 in W.P. 6715 of 2010 and W.P. 6742 of 2010. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 5 September 2011. P.C. : 1. During the course of hearing of these Petitions, it is common ground between the learned counsel that action under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has already been initiated PNP 2 WP6639-5.9.sxw by the Small Industries Development Bank of India and by the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (the Second Respondent to Writ Petition 6639 of 2010 and the Third Respondent to Writ Petition 6715 of 2010). In view thereof, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that he has instructions to withdraw the three petitions so as to pursue the remedy available in law before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The proceedings which were initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune have since been transferred by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to the Tribunal at Aurangabad. An order to that effect has been passed by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 21 June 2010. From the record it appears that on 26 March 2010 a letter was addressed by a director of the Petitioner to the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal levelling serious allegations and it was in view of these developments that the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered it appropriate to transfer the proceedings to Aurangabad. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund has taken serious exception to the allegations which were levelled by the Petitioner in the letter dated 26 March 2010. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner unconditionally withdraws all the allegations levelled against the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. We would have been inclined to take a very serious view of the conduct of the Petitioner in levelling such unfounded allegations PNP 3 WP6639-5.9.sxw against the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and, finding it unable to sustain those allegations, withdrawing them before this Court. However, having regard to the fact that the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated before the Court, even before he was called upon to sustain those allegations, that the Petitioner has unconditionally withdrawn all the allegations, we record that withdrawal. All the allegations made against the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal are therefore directed to be withdrawn in terms of the statement made before the Court. Parties have, agreed that the further proceedings shall in the interests of justice be conducted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Aurangabad in terms of the order of transfer which has been passed by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. We, similarly, record the statement made on behalf of the Petitioner that all the allegations contained in these proceedings against the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal are similarly withdrawn. The Petitions are accordingly disposed of. Subject to what has been stated above, we clarify that all the rights and contentions of the parties on the merits of the dispute are kept open to be urged before the Tribunal. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)