Dismissed

Bank of Baroda and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Dec 2021WP/8747/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an ad-interim relief order by the DRT-II, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition while seeking a direction to the Presiding Officer to prioritize a new application to vacate that interim order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to apply for vacating interim order by January 5, 2022, with direction to Presiding Officer to consider such application with priority.

Bank of Baroda and Anr. Vs Union of India and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4-WP.8747.2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8747 OF 2021

¶4

Bank of Baroda and Anr. } Petitioners versus Union of India and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. P. Kar and Mr. Prabhat Shetty i/b. Interjuris for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Ashutosh Misra for respondent no. 1 (UoI)

¶7

Mr. Aditya Bhatt i/b. Bespoke for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶8

Mr. V. M. S. Raja, authorised officer of Bank of Baroda present (petitioner no. 2).

¶9

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2021

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated October 6, 2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai [hereafter “the DRT-II”, for short) below Interlocutory Application No. 853 of 2021 in Securitisation Application No. 136 of 2021, instituted by the respondent no. 2. By such order, ad-interim relief was granted to the respondent no. 2/applicant before the DRT-II.

¶13

2. It is not in dispute that challenging the aforesaid order

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

J.V.Salunke,PS

¶16

4-WP.8747.2021

¶17

dated October 6, 2021, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai [hereafter “the DRAT(M)”, for short]; however, since the office of the Chairperson of the DRAT(M) is vacant, they have sought for urgent relief by presenting this writ petition.

¶18

3. After hearing progressed to considerable length, Mr. Thakkar, learned senior advocate for the petitioners, on instructions from Mr. V. S. M. Raja, the petitioner no. 2 and authorized officer of the petitioner no.1, who is present in Court, seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. However, Mr. Thakkar prays for a direction of this Court upon the Presiding Officer of the DRT-II to advance the date of hearing of the interim application being Interim/Interlocutory Application No. 853 of 2021.

¶19

4. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners in the pending appeal, we grant liberty to them to apply for vacating the interim order dated October 6, 2021. If such an application is filed by January 5, 2022, the said presiding officer is requested to consider such application by giving priority.

¶20

5. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

6. All contentions are left open.

¶22

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVINDASHARATH DASHARATHPANDIT PANDIT Date: 2021.12.23 18:02:15 +0530

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

J.V.Salunke,PS

Bank of Baroda and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Mr. Surya Narayan Goda and Ors. Vs Small Industries Development Bank of India, Thr. Authorized Dy. Genera Manager Mr. Manish Kumar and

Raptim Research Limited Vs the Regional Officer Maharashtra Industrial Corporation Regional Office, and Ors.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs the Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Praveen Shreeram Gholap Vs Lala Urban Coop Bank Ltd. Thr. Authorised Officer Rajesh B. Yadav

M/S. K.K. Associates Thr. Proprietor Kailash Dattatray Tonde and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kantilal Dasu Vyawahare and Ors. Vs Anil Sadashiv Jagtap