Partly allowed

Bank of Baroda,Branch Office,Lko. Thru. Authorized Officer,Chief Manager Mrs. Anjali Pandey v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and 5 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024/4127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected writ petitions under Article 227 were consolidated. The Court refused to quash DRT orders citing lack of factual denial but directed the DRT to decide pending stay vacation applications and a stay application within four weeks while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to DRT to decide pending stay vacation application and stay application on merits within four weeks; status quo maintained.

Bank of Baroda,Branch Office,Lko. Thru. Authorized… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78204

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4127 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bank Of Baroda,Branch Office,Lko. Thru. Authorized Officer,Chief Manager Mrs. Anjali Pandey Respondent :- Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava

¶5

AND

¶6

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5495 of 2024 Petitioner :- Farah Yusuf And 4 Others Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer And Another

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar,Mohammad Hamza Beg,Shailaja Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶9

1. Since both the writ petitions are related, they are being decided together by this common order.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions.

¶11

3. Writ Petition being Matters Under Article 227 No.4127 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner Bank seeking quashment of orders dated 18.07.2023, 25.09.2023 & 16.10.2023.

¶12

In the alternative, it has been prayed that the stay vacation application filed by the petitioner Bank on 28.12.2023 may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

¶13

4. Writ Petition being Matters Under Article 227 No.5495 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 05.11.2024 passed in S.A. No.752 of 2022 whereby the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had passed an order on the application filed by the petitioner holding that there was no need for an interim order, and the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing on 24.02.2025.

¶14

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Bank is that the order dated 16.10.2023 contains overwriting which were not recorded when the matter was heard on 16.10.2023 which is fortified by the fact that on 18.10.2023, the borrower had filed an application for extension of stay granted by the Tribunal on

¶15

25.09.2023.

¶16

6. Considering the disputed arguments raised with regard to the factual aspect and the fact that there is no denial of the fact that a detailed order dated 25.09.2023 was passed by the DRT granting interim protection, I do not intend to interfere in the matter except that directions are issued to the DRT to decide the stay vacation application filed by the petitioner Bank and pending consideration expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

¶17

7. The DRT shall also endeavour to decide S.A. No.752 of 2022 simultaneously on merits.

¶18

8. Needless to add, in case the parties want to settle the issue, they may do so in accordance with law.

¶19

9. The parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the stay vacation application, however, the borrower shall not create any third party right.

¶20

10. Both the petitions stand disposed off in above terms.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 nishant

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bank of Baroda,Branch Office,Lko. Thru. Authorized Officer,Chief Manager Mrs. Anjali Pandey v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda,Branch Office,Lko. Thru. Authorized Officer,Chief Manager Mrs. Anjali Pandey v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shalini Rana Vs Shri Himanshu Pandey

Kiran Vishvkarma Vs Sri Krishna Vishvkarma

Shiv Murti Vs Election Commission of India Thru. Chief Election Commission and 5 Others

Bankelal Yadav vs Chandra Bhal Phoolmati Saraswati Vidya Mandir, through Principal

Daljeet Prasad Verma and Another vs Manokanika and Another

Jokhan Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.