Dismissed

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

DRAT15 May 2025TRANSFER PETITION/4/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a transfer petition challenging allegations of bias against DRT-I, Hyderabad, holding that dismissal of interlocutory applications does not establish bias. However, the order directed the lower Tribunal to dispose of the pending original Order expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Transfer Petition dismissed; Directing DRT-I, Hyderabad to dispose of OA 532 of 2012 expeditiously after hearing parties.

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels versus Punjab National Bank and… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Transfer Petition No. 04 of 2025 (Arising out of O.A. 532 of 2012 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶4

Order No. 04 15.5.2025 Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jewels & Another … Applicants -VsPunjab National Bank & 5 Others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Appellant in person

¶6

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

For Admission

¶9

Heard the Applicant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, in person, Learned Counsel for Bank and perused the record.

¶10

Instant Transfer Petition is filed under Section 17A(2) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for transfer of O.A. 532 of 2012 (Punjab National Bank -vsGhanshyamdas Gems & Jewels) from the file of DRT-I, Hyderabad to any other DRT.

¶11

Applicant in person submits that O.A. 532 of 2012 is pending before DRT-I, Hyderabad wherein continuously he is moving applications which have merits and deserves to be allowed but the Learned DRT is biased against the Applicant and dismissing the applications. Thereafter, when the matter was pending before the Hon’ble High Court for about six years and was remanded back, Bank has not produced the

¶12

¶13

original documents rather they was produced before the Registrar and were taken back. No delay is caused due to any action of omission on the part of the Applicant rather the delay is caused due to laches on the part of the Bank. In a nut shell, the only ground in the Transfer Petition is that the Learned DRT has passed certain orders against the Applicants which creates a definite inference in the mind of the Appellant that the Learned Presiding Officer is biased against him. Accordingly, Transfer Petition is filed.

¶14

Opposed by the Learned Counsel for Bank and submits that the O.A. is pending since 2012 and is being dragged by the Applicants, the Defendants in the O.A. Transfer Petition is filed simply to further drag the proceedings.

¶15

Perusal of the Transfer Petition would show that the main concern of the Applicant is regarding dismissal of his I.A.s filed before the Learned DRT which is causing prejudice to his interest. As far as dismissal of I.A.s are concerned, Learned DRT is passing judicial orders, if any litigant is aggrieved by any judicial order passed by any Tribunal, he can avail the remedy as available in law but this cannot be a ground of transfer of the case. No bias could be established by the Applicant from the transfer petition; on the other hand it appears that the O.A. is pending since 2012 which was filed for issuance of certificate amount of Rs.31,97,60,175.00.

¶16

I do not find any ground to transfer the O.A. from the file of DRT-I, Hyderabad; rather DRT-I, Hyderabad should be

¶17

¶18

directed to decide the O.A. expeditiously as early as possible.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Transfer Petition is dismissed. However, Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the O.A. expeditiously, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law.

¶21

Accordingly, the Transfer Application is dismissed.

¶22

Copy of the order be supplied to Applicants and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶23

File be consigned to Record room.

¶24

Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶26

Dated: 15^th May, 2025 02/ac

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus M S Annapurna Oil and Mineral

Hdfc Bank versus M S North East Glass Industries

Indusind Bank Limited versus Manohara Greens Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Kanta Shah versus a P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels versus State Bank of India

Jasmine Industries versus Union Bank of India