Petitioners challenged before the Bombay High Court, seeking a direction for the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to decide a pending appeal expeditiously. The Court declined to issue a time-bound direction as hearing was already underway, though it expressed hope for expedite disposal.
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 5886 of 2013)
VAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE URISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5886 OF 2013
Smt.Nirmala Devi Chandrasen & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs.
Union Bank of India and Ors.
...Respondents
Mr.Rohan Cama i/b. T.N. Tripathis & Co. for Petitioners
Mr.Naresh Amin for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 ***
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ.
DATE : JULY 8, 2013
P.C.
give such a direction to the DRAT to hear and dispose of the appeal within a time bound period since we are not sure about the
1/2
( WP 5886 of 2013)
pendency of the cases in that Tribunal. Apart from that, the hearing is already commenced and the bank has already concluded its arguments and the matter is posted for further hearing on 27th /29th July, 2013. Hence, we are not inclined to give such a direction to the DRAT. We hope and trust that the appeal shall be disposed of expeditiously taking into consideration the peculiar fact that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are senior citizens and Petitioner No.1 is almost 90 years of age. Writ petition is disposed of.
Vaishali Tikam
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the DRAT to dispose of the pending appeal within a specific time frame.
Smt. Nirmala Devi Chandrasen
Union Bank of India
V. M. Kanade
K.R. Shriram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court