Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
WP (C) No.1435/2013 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Khanna & Ms. Asnuta Kumar, Advs.
WP (C) No.1435/2013 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Khanna & Ms. Asnuta Kumar, Advs.
VERSUS
RITA DEVI SADH & ORS.
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
04.03.2013 ..... Respondents J The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail the order of the DRAT dated 2.1.2013. In fact, the petitioner can have no grievance qua the result of the impugned order and that is why we posed a query to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the impugned order is being assailed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a submission recorded on behalf of the respondents that amounts received under the
ECGC cover by the appellant should be treated towards satisfaction of the dues which it can't be so. We also have the same view as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but then there is no finding in the impugned order against the petitioner nor acceptance of the submission of the respondent. The appeal was at an interim stage which was so disposed of and, in fact, gave rights to the petitioner to proceed with his notice under
WP (C) No.l435/2013 Page 1 of2 2013:DHC:7157-DB
Section 13 (4) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If there is some subsequent order of the DRT with which the petitioner-Bank is aggrieved where a particular view has been taken (as submitted before us though no copy of the same has been filed), it is for the petitioner-Bank to challenge that order before the appropriate forum.
Dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
MARCH 04, 2013 b'nesh WP (C) No.J43512013 ~ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
~ INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 2 of2 2013:DHC:7157-DB
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
04.03.2013 ..... Respondents J The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail the order of the DRAT dated 2.1.2013. In fact, the petitioner can have no grievance qua the result of the impugned order and that is why we posed a query to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the impugned order is being assailed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a submission recorded on behalf of the respondents that amounts received under the
ECGC cover by the appellant should be treated towards satisfaction of the dues which it can't be so. We also have the same view as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but then there is no finding in the impugned order against the petitioner nor acceptance of the submission of the respondent. The appeal was at an interim stage which was so disposed of and, in fact, gave rights to the petitioner to proceed with his notice under
WP (C) No.l435/2013 Page 1 of2 2013:DHC:7157-DB
Section 13 (4) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If there is some subsequent order of the DRT with which the petitioner-Bank is aggrieved where a particular view has been taken (as submitted before us though no copy of the same has been filed), it is for the petitioner-Bank to challenge that order before the appropriate forum.
Dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
MARCH 04, 2013 b'nesh WP (C) No.J43512013 ~ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
~ INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 2 of2 2013:DHC:7157-DB
JUDGMENT