Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Ashwini Mehra V. IOCL & Others

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Nema
    1) The petitioner, a resolution professional for Punj Lloyd Limited, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging Indian Oil Corporation's decision to invoke bank guarantees submitted by Punj Lloyd. 2) Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the National Company Law Tribunal was not functioning and could not hear the matter until May 3rd. 3) The High Court ordered that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue but to ensure fairness, restrained IOCL from invoking the guarantees for one week to allow the petitioner to approach NCLT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Ashwini Mehra V. IOCL & Others

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Nema
    9 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner, a resolution professional for Punj Lloyd Limited, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging Indian Oil Corporation's decision to invoke bank guarantees submitted by Punj Lloyd. 2) Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the National Company Law Tribunal was not functioning and could not hear the matter until May 3rd. 3) The High Court ordered that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue but to ensure fairness, restrained IOCL from invoking the guarantees for one week to allow the petitioner to approach NCLT.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The petitioner, a resolution professional for Punj Lloyd Limited, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging Indian Oil Corporation's decision to invoke bank guarantees submitted by Punj Lloyd. 2) Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the National Company Law Tribunal was not functioning and could not hear the matter until May 3rd. 3) The High Court ordered that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue but to ensure fairness, restrained IOCL from invoking the guarantees for one week to allow the petitioner to approach NCLT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views2 pages

    Ashwini Mehra V. IOCL & Others

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Nema
    1) The petitioner, a resolution professional for Punj Lloyd Limited, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging Indian Oil Corporation's decision to invoke bank guarantees submitted by Punj Lloyd. 2) Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the National Company Law Tribunal was not functioning and could not hear the matter until May 3rd. 3) The High Court ordered that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue but to ensure fairness, restrained IOCL from invoking the guarantees for one week to allow the petitioner to approach NCLT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

    W.P.(C) 2966/2020 & CM APPLs. 10297-99/2020

    ASHWINI MEHRA V. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

    (BEFORE JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR)

    DATE OF DECISION: 17TH APRIL, 2020

    FACTS:

    The petitioner filed the writ petition under the Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petitioner
    is a Resolution Professional of M/s. Punj Lloyd Limited (PLL). The petitioner came into a
    contract with Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in which Punj Lloyd Limited submitted the
    bank guarantees through Central Bank of India and IDBI Bank Limited. IOCL on 10 th April
    2020, communicated to Central Bank of India and IDBI Bank Limited to invoke certain bank
    guarantees. The petitioner filed the petition to ask the court to quash the decision of invoking
    certain bank guarantees by IOCL and to provide a week time after the lockdown to go to
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petitioner was left with no choice but to file the
    petition in High Court under Article 226 because due to the COVID 19 and the nationwide
    lockdown, NCLT has restricted its actions till 3rd May 2020 i.e, till lockdown exists. Petitioner
    also wrote an email to NCLT but no response was received. Therefore instead of going to NCLT,
    petitioner filed a petition in Court.

    ISSUE:

    The issue is whether the IOCL should be restrained or not from invoking the bank guarantees as
    the time for completion of contract stands extended till 30th June, 2020.
    ORDER:

    The court ordered that it is not its jurisdiction to give any judgment regarding the situation and it
    is the power of NCLT to give any decision in the matter. But due to the unavoidable
    circumstances, the NCLT cannot decide the matter till 3rd May 2020, therefore only to ensure
    proper and fair chance is given to the petitioner, the court ordered to give a week to petitioner to
    go to NCLT and restrained the invoking of the bank guarantees by IOCL till the matter is
    decided by the NCLT and hence the petition was disposed off by the court.

    LAW INVOLVED:

     Article 226 of Constitution of India.

    IMPACT:

    Through this decision, the petitioner will get a fair and equal chance to represent his side and
    IOCL cannot invoke the bank guarantees of the petitioner.

    Written By: Aditya Nema

    You might also like