The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal's decision not to transfer debt recovery proceedings from Mumbai to Pune, finding no case for interference.
The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-3998-11.sxw
1
dgm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3998 OF 2011
Jog Engineering Limited & anr. .... Petitioners vs Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL) & ors. .... Respondents
Mr. A. S. Daver i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Kothari i/by M/s. Apex Law Partners for respondent no.1.
Mr. V.N. Ajkumar i/by M/s. VNA Legal for respondent no.3.
CORAM: DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE : June 07, 2011
P.C.:
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has dismissed an Application for transfer of Original Application No.43/2008 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai to the Tribunal at Pune.
2 The Bank of Maharashtra and the Andhra Bank have filed an
wp-3998-11.sxw
2
Original Application for the recovery of their dues before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune. The First Respondent is the applicant in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. The First Respondent is the assignee of the debts due and owing to the Development Credit Bank. The Original Application filed by the Respondent is ripe for final hearing. In these proceedings, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has not considered it appropriate or proper to transfer the proceedings from Mumbai to Pune which would result in delaying the final adjudication.
3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has filed a counter claim at Pune. On this ground, it has been submitted that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to transfer the proceedings from Mumbai to Pune. Now, it is common ground that no counter claim has been lodged as against the First Respondent in the pending proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. This has been noted in the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has also noted that all documents pertaining to the claim of the First Respondent against the Petitioners have been filed before the Debts
wp-3998-11.sxw
3
Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. In this view of the matter and since the Original Application at Mumbai is ripe for hearing and final disposal, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal not to transfer the proceedings cannot be faulted. Acceding to the request of the Petitioner would only result in delaying the proceedings. No prejudice would result if the proceedings at Mumbai are allowed to go on. For these reasons, no case for the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal erred in not transferring the proceedings from Mumbai to Pune.
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable challenging the non-transfer of DRAT proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jog Engineering Limited
Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
