Dismissed

Yashwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit, through Assistant Law Officer, G. B. Kotwal v. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2012WP/796/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to the DRAT to admit an appeal earlier than scheduled. The court declined to grant any interim order, holding that interim applications should be made before the DRAT.

What did the court decide?

no relief granted; petition disposed of.

What the court decided

Yashwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

sk 1

¶2

wp796.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.796 OF 2012

¶6

Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit : Petitioner V/s. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune & Ors. : Respondents

¶7

: Respondents

¶8

Mr.B.V.Samant for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.A.B.Shinde for respondent no.2.

¶10

CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND

¶11

SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶12

DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2012.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶15

counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has

¶17

filed an appeal bearing No.(L) 12 of 2012 passed by the DRAT, Mumbai, against the order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No.29 of 2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that the DRAT has listed the appeal for admission on 20.2.2012, though the petitioner requested the DRAT to take up the appeal for admission much

¶18

sk 2 wp796.12

¶19

before 20.2.2012. In these circumstances, the learned counsel prays that direction be given to the DRAT to take up the appeal for admission earlier and also prays that till such time the parties may be directed to maintain status quo. The counsel for the other side opposed the request made by the petitioner.

¶20

The above referred facts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner’s

¶21

appeal filed against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune, is pending for admission before the DRAT and is to be listed for admission on 20.2.2012. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to show any indulgence at this stage nor is there any case made out for grant of interim order by us at this stage and it will be open to the petitioner to make such request before the DRAT at the time of hearing of the appeal and it is for the DRAT to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶22

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶24

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

Yashwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit, through Assistant Law Officer, G. B. Kotwal v. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Yashwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit, through Assistant Law Officer, G. B. Kotwal v. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Nrc Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Dr. Sayali Arvind Kulkarni Vs Maharashtra State Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.

Mrs. Sapana Rajarm Magar and Ors. Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Tipanna Sangappa Basawa and Ors. Vs the State of Maharastr and Ors.

Tipanna Sangappa Basawa and Ors. Vs the State of Maharastr and Ors.

Nitin H. Sejpal Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.