9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dealing with the aforesaid submission, a few facts are required to be stated in this matter, which are as under : The petitioner is a private limited company and respondent No. 3, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur filed a suit for recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for recovering huge amount of more than one crore which was taken by the petitioner from the bank by way of loan under the provisions of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( the Act ) which was registered as O.A. No. 302 of 1996 pending before respondent No. 1 Tribunal. 3. During the pendency of that suit, the petitioner filed an application on 11-12-1997, stating that the bank had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint at the time of final arguments. Accordingly, the matter was fixed on 4-5-1998, by the Tribunal. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order at Annexure 1 passed by respondent No. 1-Tribunal, the petitioner-company preferred an Appeal No. 347 of 1998 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, on 31-7-1998. The petitioner has also produced the copy of rojnama (Annexure 3) of the Appellate Tribunal and the copy of the notice dated 12-10-1998 (Annexure 2) issued by the Appellate Tribunal. From the rojnama (Annexure 3) it appears that the post of Presiding Officer fell vacant only from 15-10-1998, therefore, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was adjourned on that ground on 15-10-1998, 9-11-1998, and lastly on 11-1-1998. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court has no relevance to the facts of this case. 9. That apart, the conduct of the petitioner-company is required to be condemned in strongest words. It appears from the order at Annexure 1 passed by the Tribunal that on as many as six occasions adjournment was sought by the company for arguing the matter finally and on the seventh occasion, i.e., on 4-5-1998, instead of arguing the matter finally before the Tribunal, the petitioner-company submitted an application for production of documents from the Registrar of Companies. Thus, it appears that the petitioner-company has adopted the delay tactics in disposal of the suit filed by the other side. From the order at Annexure 1 it also appears that while rejecting the application f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Presiding Officer of Appellate Tribunal fell vacant. In that view of the matter, no grievance can be made by the petitioner-company that the appeal was not disposed of early, which ought to have been decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months as provided under section 20(6). It does not stand good. The petitioner should blame itself for adopting such delay tactics before the Appellate Tribunal. Even if the writ petition was maintainable against such interlocutory order passed by respondent No. 1 Tribunal then on the merits also the petition was required to be dismissed. When I asked the learned counsel Shri Kothari that should I decide the matter on merits or not, at that time the learned counsel submitted that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
