Petitioner sought limited protection to continue a DRT status-quo order pending an appeal before the DRAT, citing lack of Presiding Officer appointments and no prior Supreme Court direction to the contrary.
Limited protection extending the DRT status-quo order till 22nd April, 2014, granted.
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.
{1}
3261.14 wp.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3261 OF 2014
M/s. Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd.
Petitioner/s
Versus
Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
and another.
Respondent/s
Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Gorde Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.
1.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2014.
PER COURT:
1]The petitioner is praying for grant of
limited protection of continuance of the order of
status-quo granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal
('DRT' for short), while disposing of the proceedings
before the Tribunal initiated by the petitioner.
2]It is not disputed that the DRT, while
disposing of the petition, granted limited protection,
directing the respondents to maintain status-quo till
17th February, 2014. The interim protection granted by
the DRT was continued thereafter and the effect of the
order came to an end on 11th March, 2014.
3]The petitioner states that an application
{2}
3261.14 wp.odt
was presented for continuation of the interim order.
However, the same was rejected by the DRT.
4]The petitioner contends that the Presiding
Officer of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
(`DRAT' for short), is not available since no
appointments are made. As such, the petitioner prays
for a limited protection until an application for
grant of interim relief is presented before the DRAT,
alongwith an appeal.
5]The Petitioner is permitted to present the
appeal as well as application for interim relief
before the DRAT within a period of one week from
today.
6]The counsel appearing for the respondent No.
1 has opposed the consideration of the request made by
the petitioner contending that any order in respect of
grant of interim protection in favour of petitioner
would be in contravention of the interim order passed
by the Honourable Apex Court, in the Special Leave
Petition presented by the MSC Bank against one Umang
Sugars Private Limited and another, bearing Special
Leave Petition No. 5715 of 2014, wherein the Bank has
been given liberty to initiate the process of selling
the Assets, if so advised. It is not a matter of
dispute that the petitioner before us is not party to
the proceedings before the Apex Court.
7]On perusal of the order passed by the
Honourable Apex Court, there does not appear to be any
3261.14 wp.odt
{3}
direction issued, as contended by the respondents.
8]In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, the request made by the petitioner for grant
of limited protection, so as to avail the appellate
remedy needs consideration. The petitioner cannot be
deprived of an opportunity of having the case decided
by the DRAT.
9]Learnedcounselappearingforthe
respondents further contends that the charge of the
Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai is entrusted with the
Officer functioning at Kolkata. If that be so, it
would be open for the petitioner to approach the
Presiding Officer at Kolkata for securing appropriate
orders.
10]In the circumstances of the case, we extend
limited protection granted by the DRT, which was
available till 11th March, 2014, for a period of two
weeks from today.
11]Writpetitionstandsdisposedof
accordingly.
12]Parties to act upon the authenticated copy
of this order.
[A.M. BADAR][R.M. BORDE]
JUDGE JUDGE.
grt/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted limited protection for the continuation of a status-quo order before the DRAT.
Whether the Supreme Court order in the special leave petition barred interim protection in the instant proceedings.
Whether the petitioner can approach the Presiding Officer at Kolkata given the charge of the Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai is entrusted to an Officer at Kolkata.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Special Leave Petition No. 5715 of 2014Referred¶6
M/s. Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd.
Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
R.M. Borde
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court