Full Text
Translation output
% 05.09.2011
Present: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.L. Gupta & Mr. Ram Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Sudarsh Menon, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
+ WP (C) No.7758/2010
Respondent No.1 Bank filed recovery proceedings vide OA
No.38/1998 before the DRT. These proceedings resulted in an order dated 26.5.1999. The said order was assailed before the
DRAT in appeal No.l55/2000 in which the impugned order dated
29.9.2010 has been passed. We may note that the impugned order is common to appeal No.l55/2000 & appeal No.l56/2000
(arising out of OA No.37/1998) but in the present writ petition there is no prayer made qua the proceedings arising from OA
No.37/1998.
In terms of the impugned order, the DRAT instead of remanding the matter back for the parties to adduce evidence has considered it appropriate to record evidence itself as a court of first instance. It is this aspect which is objected to by the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsels for the parties, it is agreed as under:
WP (C) No. 7758/2010 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:18032-DB
•
-
·• i. The impugned order dated 29.9.2010 in appeal
No.lSS/2000 and the order dated 26.5.1999 in OA
No.38/1998 be set aside. Ordered accordingly. ii. The parties will be given an opportunity to lead evidence.
Respondent No.1 Bank will file its evidence (we may note that the Bank had already filed an affidavit of evidence before the DRAT} within one (1} week. The appellant will file the affidavit of evidence within two (2} weeks thereafter. iii. In view of the matter being quite old, the DRT will give priority to the matter and endeavour to complete the proceedings within a maximum period of six (6} months from the first date of hearing. iv. Certain amounts whether in terms of money or FOR stand attached in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the DRT. The attachment/recovery will not be lifted by reason of orders of DRT and DRAT being set aside but would continue to remain in force till fresh order is passed by the DRT and the fate of attachment/recovery would, thus, depend on the order which emanates from the DRT or any subsequent order arising from a challenge laid to the said order.
WP (C) No.7758/2010 Page2of3
• v. The parties to appear before the DRT on 29.9.2011.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A copy of this order without process fee be sent to the DRT. ti -~-- ....
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
WP (C) No.7758/2010 Page 3 of3
Present: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.L. Gupta & Mr. Ram Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Sudarsh Menon, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
+ WP (C) No.7758/2010
Respondent No.1 Bank filed recovery proceedings vide OA
No.38/1998 before the DRT. These proceedings resulted in an order dated 26.5.1999. The said order was assailed before the
DRAT in appeal No.l55/2000 in which the impugned order dated
29.9.2010 has been passed. We may note that the impugned order is common to appeal No.l55/2000 & appeal No.l56/2000
(arising out of OA No.37/1998) but in the present writ petition there is no prayer made qua the proceedings arising from OA
No.37/1998.
In terms of the impugned order, the DRAT instead of remanding the matter back for the parties to adduce evidence has considered it appropriate to record evidence itself as a court of first instance. It is this aspect which is objected to by the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsels for the parties, it is agreed as under:
WP (C) No. 7758/2010 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:18032-DB
•
-
·• i. The impugned order dated 29.9.2010 in appeal
No.lSS/2000 and the order dated 26.5.1999 in OA
No.38/1998 be set aside. Ordered accordingly. ii. The parties will be given an opportunity to lead evidence.
Respondent No.1 Bank will file its evidence (we may note that the Bank had already filed an affidavit of evidence before the DRAT} within one (1} week. The appellant will file the affidavit of evidence within two (2} weeks thereafter. iii. In view of the matter being quite old, the DRT will give priority to the matter and endeavour to complete the proceedings within a maximum period of six (6} months from the first date of hearing. iv. Certain amounts whether in terms of money or FOR stand attached in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the DRT. The attachment/recovery will not be lifted by reason of orders of DRT and DRAT being set aside but would continue to remain in force till fresh order is passed by the DRT and the fate of attachment/recovery would, thus, depend on the order which emanates from the DRT or any subsequent order arising from a challenge laid to the said order.
WP (C) No.7758/2010 Page2of3
• v. The parties to appear before the DRT on 29.9.2011.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A copy of this order without process fee be sent to the DRT. ti -~-- ....
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
WP (C) No.7758/2010 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT