i' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision : August 11, 2006 + W.P.(C).No. 12720/2006 & CM 9829/2006 # Oman International Bank S.A.O.G. Petitioner ! through : Mr. A.B. Dial, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sushil K. Tekriwal, Advocate. Vs. $ The Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction & Ors Respondents. ^ through : Mr. A.K. Thakur, Advocate . CORAM * HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR WP(C) No.12720/2006 Page1 of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:05.10.2023 14:45 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified n I 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Viiender Jain, ACJ (Oral) This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the AAIFR. The grievance of the petitioner is that the AAIFR could not have passed such order. In paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the AAIFR has observed as follows: " We find that a substantial part of OTS has already been paid to Banks/FI. Except Oman International Bank, the other two Banks (Vijaya Bank/Saraswat Co-operative Bak) and IFCI are not in favour of winding up. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 21.8.2003 passed by BIFR and uphold the Sanctioned Scheme approved by BIFR on 23.3.2001. The appellant company is directed to pay the balance amount due as WP(C) No.12720/2006 Page 2of4 per OTS in the SanctionedSchemewithin one monthfrom the date of this order. The balancedues payableto IFCI, Saraswat CooperativeBank and OIB are Rs.31 lakhs,Rs. 18.93 lakhs and Rs. 27.44 laklis respectively. These dues will carry interestat PLR from the date the last paymentwas made by the appellant company. The implementation of the Scheme (SS 03) will be reviewedby the BIFR after60 days of this order and, thereafter, on the basis of the reviewfurtherappropriateactionwillbe taken by BIFRin accordancewithlaw." The said impugned order has been passed pursuant to the direction of the SupremeCourtas the respondent aggrievedby the orderof the Division Bench of this Court approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed that in view of the constitutionof the AAIFR which was seized of the hearing in the appeals filed by the appellant the AAIFR should proceed with the hearing of the appeal uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. Pursuant to that direction said impugned order has been passed by the AAIFR. The WP (C) No.12720/2006 Page 3 of 4 /• top,e„.entatio„of the scheme wUl be reviewed by the BIFRtn tenns of the order of the AAIFR and if the appellanthas any grievance he can agitatethe samebeforethe BIFR. Withthis direction,writpetitionstandsdisposedof. August 11, 2006 WP (C) No.12720/2006 (VijendprJain) Acting ChiM Justice (Kailasli Gambhir) Judge Page 4 of 4