The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the D.R.A.T.'s order allowing recovery of expenses, noting the petitioners were absent and no manifest illegality was shown.
Writ petition dismissed.
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.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2015
M/s. Themis Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Versus
Union Bank of India & Anr.
.. Respondents
| Appearances | |
|---|---|
| Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Harsh Behany i/by |
|
| M/s. Maniar Srivastava Associates | Advocate for the Petitioners |
| Mr. Jameshed Ansari | Advocate for Respondent No. 1 |
CORAM : D.H. WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE &
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2016.
P.C.:
1. The petitioners - companies have invoked the extra
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to call into question the
order dated 2.5.2014 of the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal at Mumbai in Appeal No. 417 of 2006. The final
order by which the petitioners are aggrieved reads as under:-
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
The circulation shows that the amount payable as on 17.5.2006 is Rs. 20,00,898.96. The appellant has incurred advertising charges as well as valuation charges as per direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed.
This order for payment of expenses incurred by the respondent - bank is made after rejection of the claim by the D.R.T. in Application No. 25 of 2006. The D.R.T. rejected the
claim of the bank for the amount of expenses on the basis that the bank had not tendered any evidence proving the extent of advertisement charges, charges of valuer etc which amounted to total recovery of Rs. 6,00,347.76.
before the D.R.T. a detailed statement in the from of Annexure - II to show the amount of actual expenses of advertisement and other charges but the documents in
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3
respect of those claims were not filed before the DRT. However, during the course of hearing before the D.R.A.T., the actual bills were produced before the D.R.A.T. and the D.R.A.T. has based its conclusion and order on such material.
Therefore, there is no substance in the plea of the petitioners that there was no material before the D.R.A.T. to substantiate the claim of expenses and charges, which were
incurred pursuant to the order of the Apex Court. It is submitted before this Court that the petitioners were in fact not present or represented before the D.R.A.T. In such circumstances, the present petition under Article 227 is not a proper remedy and in other words, no manifest illegality having been pointed out from the impugned order, the petition is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly it is dismissed.
[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable when the petitioners were not present or represented before the D.R.A.T. on material facts.
M/s. Themis Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Union Bank of India & Anr.
D.H. Waghela
V.K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
