Dismissed

Partho Bhattacharya v. Ld. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-Iii & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/227/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Dismissal / continuation of proceedings by DRt-III due to non-compliance with a deposit condition. The Court held the petitioner must file proof of deposit to claim a stay was lifted. Order dated 12.01.2016.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; observation made that petitioner may file application for stay upon producing proof of deposit.

Partho Bhattacharya Vs Ld. Presiding Officer, Debt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 227/2016

¶4

PARTHO BHATTACHARYA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.P.Bhattacharya, Advocate with Mr.K.K.Bose, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

LD. PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: None

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶8

O R D E R % 12.01.2016

¶9

Concededly the writ petitioner was granted an interim stay requiring it to deposit ` 10,00,000/- within 45 days as a condition for stay of proceedings initiated by the bank. Vide impugned order dated November 20, 2015 the Presiding Office of DRT-3 has permitted the proceedings to continue noting that the writ petitioner has not complied with the order.

¶10

In the prolix writ petition spanning 26 pages we find no positive averment that the money was deposited on a particular date. In the annexures filed there is no proof of the money being deposited. The counsel for the writ petitioner wants to argue the matter by referring to certain orders allegedly containing admissions of the bank. It is trite that where primary material can be shown to prove a fact asserted, the Court may refuse to look into secondary material unless it is pleaded that the primary material is lost.

¶11

W.P.(C) No.227/2016

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

To our mind the simple thing, if assertion is that : ‘ I have deposited the money as directed ’, is to file proof of the deposit made.

¶14

We dismiss the writ petition but observe that if the writ petitioner has proof of having made the requisite deposit which was a condition for the stay granted, upon proof of the primary document showing the deposit being annexed, the writ petitioner would be permitted to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal pleading that in view of compliance made the further proceedings be stayed.

¶15

No costs.

¶16

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶17

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

¶18

JANUARY 12, 2016 mamta

¶19

W.P.(C) No.227/2016

¶20

Page 2 of 2

Partho Bhattacharya v. Ld. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-Iii & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partho Bhattacharya v. Ld. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-Iii & Anr.

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

Ram Kishan Vs Rajesh Yadav and Ors.

Amet Sikka Vs Government of Delhi Nct, Delhi Government Secretariat

Neelam Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajiv Khosla Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Phoenix Surgicals & Ors. Vs the Drug Controller of Delhi & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Arora & Ors. Vs the Registrar Co-Op. Societies & Ors.

M/S Srj Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Director Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Tulinder Katoch Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sansar Chand Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Balram Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Seraz Ali Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Kanungo Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Rgv Film Factory & Ors.

Lakshmi Float Glass Ltd. & Anr. Vs Iag Glass Co. Ltd.

M/S. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. Vs Radico Khaitan Ltd.