In an interim order, the Tribunal recalled a stay on an earlier order and listed the appeal for hearing, noting the Appellant was unaware of a High Court judgment directing compliance with a Tribunal order.
Stay on order dated 28.09.2022 recalled; matter listed for hearing on 16th January, 2023. Direction to Bank officer to file affidavit.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 93 of 2022) (Arising out of S.A. 1500 of 2017 in DRT-1,Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
28.09.2022 State Bank of India
… Appellant
-vs-
Anji Reddy
… Respondent
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta with Mr. Vikas Baisya
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Learned Counsel for Respondent prays for and is granted three weeks time to file opposition with advance copy to the Appellant. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Till next date of listing operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. At this stage Learned Counsel for Respondent places a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Telanghana dated 18th August, 2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2020 wherein the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:
“11. The writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent Bank to comply with the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in S.A. No. 1500 of 2017 along with I.A. No. 3499 of 2019 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad, within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Implementation of the directions of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II shall be subject to the outcome of Appeal Diary No. 297 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. In the event the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reversing the decision of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, petitioner shall deposit the title deeds with the Respondent Bank. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stand closed.”
2
Learned Counsel for Bank submits that he has no knowledge about this order. Appellant Bank was not a party in the writ petition and the writ petition was decided by the Hon’ble High Court wherein specific directions are issued. It was the responsibility of the concerned Bank Officer to supply copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court to their Counsel; having not done so, it is their fault. As per Learned Counsel’s statement, he was not having any instruction regarding the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
It is a very serious issue wherein some contradictory order could have been passed by this Tribunal against the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the concerned officer of the Bank, who had pursued the Bank cause in the writ petition, should file his personal affidavit before this Tribunal as to why he has not apprised his Counsel about the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. In case the personal affidavit is not filed by the concerned officer, he should appear in person on the next date of listing. .
The initial order, staying operation of the order of the Learned DRT, is hereby recalled.
List the matter on 16th January, 2023 for hearing of the appeal.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 28th September, 2022 10/ac
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the operation of an earlier order staying the bank was to be continued given a High Court judgment affecting the same parties was incomplete
State Bank of India
Anji Reddy
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
