Mrs. Bamang Yayu and Anr. Vs Uco Bank and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mrs. Bamang Yayu and Anr. Vs Uco Bank and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed without merits adjudication; petitioners granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum as per law, with the appellate authority empowered to exclude the period spent before the High Court w.e.f. 29.01.2016 while condoning delay.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court could enter into the merits of the DRT's judgment in O.A. No. 177/2012, as contended by the petitioner, when the Court's earlier order dated 08.01.2016 was interim and the DRT's decision is appealable. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court declined to accept the contention that it could enter into the merits of the DRT judgment, since its order dated 08.01.2016 was an interim order and the DRT's decision is appealable, so the DRT judgment cannot be reversed by deciding the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

The issue raised in the writ petition, namely the introduction of secondary evidence and its effect on the final outcome of the judgment dated 29.01.2016 in O.A. No. 177/2012, can effectively be decided by the statutory appellate forum.

Key takeaways

In view of the subsequent development (allowance of the O.A.) and the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, the Court was not inclined to decide the writ petition, which accordingly stands closed.ratio¶26
The petitioners were permitted to approach the appropriate forum as per law, and while condoning the delay, the appellate authority may exclude the period spent before this Court w.e.f. 29.01.2016.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery proceeding — DRT, Guwahati allowed bank's petition No. 856/2015 (order dated 09.11.2015) to bring on record a Xerox copy of the power of attorney executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner, alleging introduction of secondary evidence in O.A. No. 177/2012 initiated by UCO Bank, Itanagar Branch — During pendency of the writ petition, the DRT allowed the O.A. by judgment dated 29.01.2016 and no appeal was preferred — Held: the Court's earlier order dated 08.01.2016 was interim; the DRT judgment, being appealable, cannot be reversed by entering into merits in the writ petition; the secondary-evidence issue and its effect on the final outcome can effectively be decided by the statutory appellate forum — Writ petition closed on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy; petitioners permitted to approach the appropriate forum, and while condoning delay the appellate authority may exclude the period spent before the High Court w.e.f. 29.01.2016.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010105322016

2025:GAU-AS:7686

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/138/2016

MRS. BAMANG YAYU and ANR.

W/O BAMANG MANGHA, R/O BAGE TINALI, P.O. and P.S. NIRJULI, DISTPAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2: SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN S/O MADAN LAL JAIN R/O BAGE TINALI NIRJULI DIST- PAPUMPARE A.P

VERSUS

UCO BANK and ANR. ITANAGAR BRANCH, BANK TINALI, ITANAGAR-791111, DIST- PAPUM PARE, A.P.

2:THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK ITANAGAR BRANCH BANK TINALI ITANAGAR-791111 DIST- PAPUM PARE A.P

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S SANCHETI, MR.R C SANCHATI,MS.S SAH

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.R K BHATRA R, MR.K K BHATRA(R-1&2),MR.R RABHA(R1&2)

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

10.06.2025

Heard Mr. S. Sanchati, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners are facing a recovery proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, in the O.A. No. 177/2012 initiated by the Itanagar Branch of the UCO Bank. They are aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2015, whereby the bank’s petition No. 856/2015 for bringing on record the Xerox copy of the power of attorney executed by the 1^st petitioner in favour of the 2^nd petitioner, was allowed by the DRT. The petition was filed alleging introduction of secondary evidence in recovery proceeding.

This Court under its order dated 08.01.2016, while issuing notice of motion, provided that pendency of this writ petition shall not be a bar for DRT to pass the final order in the O.A. No. 177/2012, but same is made subject to the result of this case.

In the meantime, during the pendency of this writ petition, the O.A. has already been allowed by the learned DRT, Guwahati under its Judgment dated 29.01.2016 and admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid O.A.

Mr. Sanchati, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court can enter into the merit of the judgment passed by the DRT inasmuch as the final outcome was subject matter of the present writ petition. This Court is not inclined to accept such contention inasmuch as the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by this Court was an interim order and by entering into merit of the contention

Page No.# 3/3

raised in this writ petition, the judgment of the learned DRT cannot be reversed inasmuch as such a decision of the learned DRT is appealable.

This Court is of further opinion that the issue raised in this writ petition i.e. the introduction of secondary evidence and the affect of such secondary evidence on the final outcome on the judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed on O.A. No. 177/2012 can effectively be decided by the statutory appellate forum.

In view of the aforesaid and in view of the subsequent development, this Court is not inclined to decide this writ petition for having efficacious alternative remedy. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed. The petitioners are permitted to approach before the appropriate forum, if so advised, as per law. While condoning the delay, the appellate authority may exclude the period spent before this Court w.e.f. 29.01.2016.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant