9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petitioner's appeal delay due to vacant Presiding Officer post at Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal; Rejection of application for document production by Debt Recovery Tribunal; Delay tactics by petitioner in disposal of the suit; Entertaining petition against interlocutory order; Scope of Article 227 petition. Analysis: The judgment dealt with multiple issues arising from the petitioner's appeal delay due to the vacant post of the Presiding Officer at the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a private limited company, faced a recovery suit by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner filed an application for document production, which was rejected by the Tribunal on various grounds, including prior rejections, evidence submission, and admission of loan details. The Tribunal observed the petitioner's delay tactics in seeking adjournments and filing the application on the seventh occasion instead of finalizing arguments. The petitioner appealed the rejection before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, facing further delays and non-compliance with orders, attributing the delay to the vacant Presiding Officer post. The judgment discussed the permissibility of entertaining a petition against an interlocutory order, citing the Madras High Court's observations in Gemini Arts (P.) Ltd. v. Indian Bank. It highlighted the distinction between observations and actual entertainment, emphasizing that the Madras High Court refused to entertain a similar petition. The judgment condemned the petitioner's conduct, noting delay tactics before both Tribunals and the subsequent blame-shifting for appeal delays. The Court refrained from deciding on the merits, considering the pending appeal challenging the Tribunal's order. It emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 petitions, citing precedent that even legal errors cannot be corrected through such petitions against interlocutory orders. The judgment also addressed the petitioner's request to treat the petition as a Division Bench civil writ petition, emphasizing the importance of timely procedural considerations. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petition, leading to its dismissal based on the discussed issues and analysis.
|
