Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S LEATHER COMPLEX THRU' ITS PROPRIETOR & ANR. versus THE CHAIRMAN DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Leather Complex Thru' Its Proprietor & Anr. v. The Chairman Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal And Others - WRIT - C No. 8969 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3358 (14 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the order dated 6.2.2006 passed by the appellate authority, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad

It has been stated that certain loans were taken and the Bank had filed a suit against the petitioners, which was allowed on 26.12.2002 by the tribunal. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed a review application, which was, dismissed-vide its order-dated 27.1.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners have filed a writ petition before this Court as writ Petition No. 8214 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of finally after hearing counsel for the parties on 27.2.2004 with a direction that as the petitioners have alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal, the petitioners will file an appeal and the appellate tribunal will consider and decide the matter within a month. Further direction in the writ petition was that till the appellate tribunal decides the applications of the petitioners, the auction sale, which has taken place, shall not be confirmed. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.1.2004 the petitioners have filed an appeal but the same has been rejected treating the said application as review application by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached this Court.

Sri T.S. Pandey who appears on behalf of the petitioners has fairly conceded to this effect that it appears that on the wrong advice of the counsel, the relief for quashing the original order was deleted and only a relief to this effect was sought for quashing the order dated 27.1.2004, that was on an application of review filed by the petitioners. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the appeal has been rejected only on the ground treating the said appeal against the order passed on the review application. The appellate tribunal should have considered the matter on merit but only on technical ground, the appeal of the petitioners has been rejected treating the said appeal against the order-dated 27.1.2004, which was passed by the tribunal on the review application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

I have heard Sri Vipin Sinha who appears for respondent no.3 and Sri K.M. Asthana who puts in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 1,2, and 4. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the tribunal that if the petitioners file an appeal challenging the original order within a week, the same may be decided on merits. If the petitioners make an application under section 5/14 of the Act, the same will also be considered taking into consideration that on the basis of some wrong advice in the relief sought in the memo of appeal, the relief of quashing the original order dated 26.12.2002 was deleted.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. It is however, observed that if the appeal is filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the tribunal may decide the same as early as possible. It would be open to the petitioners to make an application for stay for confirmation of the auction sale and if the said application is filed, the same may be considered by the appellate court according to law on merits taking into consideration the fact of the present case as well as the order of this Court in the writ Petition no. 8214 of 2004.

14.2.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P. 8969 of 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.