Disposed

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

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024A227/4127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, petitioner Bank of Baroda challenged DrT orders regarding interim relief on securitisation. Counsel alleged jurisdictional error and unauthenticated interpolation. Court issued notice and restrained further interim orders post-April 2023.

What did the court decide?

All orders passed concerning interim relief in favour of opposite parties no.2 to 6 after the order dated 20.04.2023 shall remain in abeyance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4127 of 2024

¶3

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

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of orders dated 18.07.2023, 25.09.2023 and 16.10.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Securitisation Application No.752 of 2022.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties no.2 to 6 have filed a Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and they had filed an application for interim relief therein. The application for interim relief was disposed of by means of an order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal providing that the CMM will issue at least 15 days prior notice before taking the physical possession of the property in question. After the interim relief application disposed of by the order dated 20.04.2023, the Dates Recovery Tribunal passed an order dated 18.07.2023, fixing the matter for 10.08.2023 for further hearing on interim relief application regarding possession. On 25.9.2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in question till the next date of listing.

¶9

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

¶10

when the temporary injunction application has already been disposed of by the order dated 20.04.2023, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any further order regarding interim relief on the same application. Further, from the typed order passed on 16.10.2023, which is available on the ordersheet, it appears that the time bound interim relief order dated 25.09.2023 was not extended on 16.10.2023 and the matter was simply adjourned to 07.05.2024. This is further fortified from the fact that on 18.10.2023, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 to 6 had filed an application for extension of the interim order stating that the matter could not be taken up on 16.10.2023 due to paucity of time, and the interim order was not extended. However, a copy of the order date 16.10.2023 annexed with the petition indicates that after the typed order "Due to paucity of time, the case could not be taken hence, no progress in the case. The case is adjourned to 07.05.2024 for same proceedings." it has been written in hand that "IR is extended till the date fixed."

¶11

The interpolation made in hand writing in the typed order has not been authenticated by any signature initials.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it prima facie indicates that the interpolation in the order dated 16.10.2023 has been made after passing and signing of the order dated 16.10.2023.

¶13

The matter requires consideration.

¶14

Issue notice to the opposite parties no.2 to 6 returnable at an early date.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner shall take requisite steps in this regard within three days.

¶16

The opposite parties may file counter affidavit within three

¶17

weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

¶18

List this case in the week commencing 04.11.2024.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, as an interim measure, it is provided that all the orders passed regarding interim relief in favour of the opposite parties no.2 to 6 after disposal of the interim relief application by the order dated 20.04.2023, shall remain in abeyance.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 KR

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Anuj Mishra @ Babloo Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dilip Kumar Lodh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Abarar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Shyamu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Meraj Sai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.