The High Court dismissed this writ petition as infructuous because the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, had been appointed, resolving the vacancy that rendered the petition essential.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; interim order vacated
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.
11 wp 8116.16 as.doc
k 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8116 OF 2016
Smt. Sunanda Shantaram Thete & Anr. … Petitioners vs. Union Bank of India … Respondent
Mr. Prashant D. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. Nainesh Amin for the Respondent Bank.
Coram : A.A. Sayed & Manish Pitale, JJ. Date : 13 December 2017
P.C. :
1 This Writ Petition was filed in June 2016 essentially on the premise that though they have filed an Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (DRAT), Mumbai, challenging the judgment and order dated 18-02-2014 passed in the O.A., for more than four months, the post of Chairperson, DRAT is vacant and the charge of the same is given to DRAT, Allahabad and the Petitioners being poor agriculturists were unable to bear expenses of travelling to Allahabad and engage an Advocate there and the recovery proceeding No.256 of 2015 filed against the Petitioners before the Recovery Officer, DRT II, Mumbai be not proceed with.
1/2
k 2/2 11 wp 8116.16 as.doc
2 We are informed that the Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai, has now been appointed. In the circumstances, the Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
3 Needless to say that interim order passed by this Court shall stand vacated. The Petitioners would be at liberty to seek interim orders before the Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case and the Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai, shall decide the Interim Application for stay on its own merits. We are informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Appeal is now to come up for hearing before DRAT on 28 December 2017. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank states that until 28 December 2017 they shall not take steps to execute the Recovery Certificate. The statement is accepted.
(Manish Pitale, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)
katkam
2/2
Smt. Sunanda Shantaram Thete
Union Bank of India
A.A. Sayed
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
