Disposed

M/S B. D. Cold Storage and Allied Industries Barabanki Thru. Partner Sri Ram Kumar Jaiswal v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024A227/1165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Allahabad High Court upheld the dismissal. The Court found that the petitioner challenged a lower Tribunal's order rejecting their review application as time-barred, arguing the rejection was contrary to evidence of filing dates. The Court did not examine the merits but disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioner to move a fresh review before the Trib

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the petitioner is directed to move a review application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

M/S B. D. Cold Storage and Allied… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21175

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1165 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S B. D. Cold Storage And Allied Industries Barabanki Thru. Partner Sri Ram Kumar Jaiswal Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari,Shailaja Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow on application No. 150 of 2013 whereby an application for review/recall dated 5.9.2018 has been dismissed as time-barred and not maintainable.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the perusal of the impugned order, it would indicate that the Tribunal has noticed that the review/recall application was filed on 5.9.2018 against the order dated 6.8.2018 and as per the prescribed period of limitation, the review/recall application can be filed within 30 days. It is stated that this observation of the D.R.T. concerned may not be incorrect, but the fact is that the application for review/recall has been dismissed holding that the application was time-barred.

¶10

It is thus urged that this is a contradictory finding and error apparent on the face of the record which may persuade this Court to entertain this petition, despite availability of the alternate statutory remedy of an appeal.

¶11

Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents submits that from perusal of the order dated 6.8.2018, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-21, at the end there is an endorsement of the office concerned indicating that the application for review/recall was insufficiently stamped and the said report is of 13.9.2018. Accordingly, the observation of the Tribunal that the applicant was time-barred, cannot be said to be erroneous as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the application for review/recall has been brought on record as Annexure-22 and at running page no. 160 of the paper book on the top right hand side column, there is a receiving of the D.R.T. concerned including Diary No. 1056 dated 5.9.2018. It is thus, urged that this is the certified copy which clearly amplifies the fact that the review/recall was filed on 5.9.2018 and even though if there may have been some error, yet it cannot have the effect of rejecting the application as timebarred. It is thus submitted that the observation made by the Presiding Officer rejecting the review/recall application as timebarred is specifically erroneous.

¶13

The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the application for review/recall which has been brought on record as Annexure-22 clearly indicates the Diary No. 1056 dated 5.9.2018 and also noticed that the said application for review/recall was filed on 5.9.2018 against the order dated 6.8.2018 also noticing that the period of limitation was 30 days. A query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner if there is an error apparent on the face of the record whether the petitioner has a remedy of filing a review as the error pointed out does fall within the parameter of an error apparent on the face of the record. To which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case if it is permitted, he may file a review.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to move a review application before the D.R.T. concerned and in case if such an application is moved, the D.R.T. concerned shall consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after hearing the parties and without granting unnecessary adjournments.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 Shravan

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S B. D. Cold Storage and Allied Industries Barabanki Thru. Partner Sri Ram Kumar Jaiswal v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S B. D. Cold Storage and Allied Industries Barabanki Thru. Partner Sri Ram Kumar Jaiswal v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and 4 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

Divyanshu Misra Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Hari Prasad Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Harun Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 23, Sultanpur and 4 Others

Ayub Khan and Others U/a 227 Vs 2ND A.D.J. Kheri and Others

Ram Ji and 5 Others Vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 6 Others

Phool Chandra and Another Vs Civil Judge J.D Sadar Distt. Pratapgarh and Another