Allowed

Romen M Patel v. Bank of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jan 2016WP/120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that an order by the DRAT directing a petitioner to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs before entertaining an appeal against an order on an interlocutory application was erroneous. The court proved the deposit unneeded and disposed of the writ petition and appeal by directing the tribun to hear the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The pre-deposit condition imposed by the DRAT was lifted; the Tribunal was directed to hear the Petitioner's contentions and dispose of the main proceeding expeditiously.

1.Having heard Mr. Cama appearing for the Petitioner (the Appellant before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (“DRAT”) and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank, we are of the view that the learned Chairperson of the DRAT was in error in directing the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs as a pre-condition for entertaining the Petitioner’s Appeal. The learned Chairperson should have noted the nature of the proceedings. The Petitioner was not challenging any substantive decree or the determination by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) of any sum due and payable. There was an interlocutory application being Miscellaneous Application No. 857 of 2013 in which the Petitioner submitted before the DRT, viz., the Trial Court, that the

Respondent Bank ought not be permitted to rely upon certain documents alleged by the Petitioner to be fabricated. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed that application to be heard along with the main proceeding.

2.It was in the context of this limited controversy, and aggrieved by this order of the Presiding Officer that the Petitioner approached the DRAT. On such an Appeal, the Registry of that Tribunal raised an objection that the Petitioner must comply with the requirement of deposit of money as a pre-condition for entertaining the Appeal, or else he should apply for a waiver of the pre-condition of deposit. The DRAT found that such an application for waiver was indeed made and proceeding on the basis that because such an application was made, it ipso facto empowered or enabled the DRAT to impose a condition of pre-deposit, that the instant order with a condition of pre-deposit was passed.

3.However, while not upholding that part of the order passed by the learned Chairperson of the DRAT and while interfering with it to that extent, we record the statements made by Mr. Cama, on instructions, that the Petitioner will not press his Appeal before the DRAT being Appeal No. 292 of 2015. The Petitioners have already filed a Written Statement in the Tribunal to oppose the Original Application. The Debt Recovery Tribunal to which the Original Application is assigned shall permit the Petitioner to raise all contentions, including those based on the contents of Miscellaneous Application No. 857 of 2013. The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose the main proceeding expeditiously.

Romen M Patel v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romen M Patel v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Central Excise Pune-Iii Vs M/S. Sahakar Shiromani Vasantrao Kale Shakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Checkmate Industries Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, III

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/S. Himson Petrosynthetics Ltd.

Shri. Adgonda Shamgonda Patil Vs Ld. District Deputy Registrar @ District Co-Op. Election Officer and Ors.

Shri. Adgonda Shamgonda Patil Vs Ld. District Deputy Registrar @ District Co-Op. Election Officer and Ors.

United Arab Shipping Agency Vs State Bank of Mysore and 2 Ors.