M/S Excellent Dairy and Farming Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010025662025

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/788/2025

¶6

M/S EXCELLENT DAIRY AND FARMING PVT. LTD.

¶7

REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR MR. ABHIJIT SAIKIA, SON OF LATE DHRUBA KUMAR SAIKIA, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 7, DEVDARU PATH, NEAR RAJDHANI MASJID, DISPUR, ASSAM-781006.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIUMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA, INDIA -400021.

¶11

2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE UNION BANK OF INDIA GNB ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781003.

¶12

3:SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER MAIDAMGAON BRANCH UNION BANK OF INDIA BELTOLA GUWAHATI ASSAM-781028

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. P GOSWAMI, MS. A BORO

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, UBI,

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

10-06-2025

¶19

1. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, United Bank of India (UBI) for the respondents.

¶20

2. The present writ petition is filed, amongst other, for a direction to the respondent Bank to issue No Due Certificate to the petitioner company, in terms of the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A. No. 42/2023 & I.A. No. 571/2023, arising out of O.A. (Original Application) No. 333/2022.

¶21

3. O.A. No. 333/2022 was filed by the respondent Bank, seeking recovery of certain loan dues. The present petitioners, who were defendants in aforesaid O.A., filed the interlocutory applications, as recorded herein above, with prayer to issue No Due Certificate against the petitioners herein/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and to refund the extra amount claimed to have been paid to the respondent Bank and also to return the original documents, submitted by the petitioners herein/ defendants, as security. Such claim was made with a background fact that during the pendency of aforesaid O.A., more than outstanding dues were paid by the petitioners.

¶22

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, recorded the following in its order dated 28.10.2024:-

¶23

“In the instant case as it is evident that the total outstanding claim of the applicant bank is Rs. 72,32,349.8/- as on 30.06.2022, and the petitioners/defendant No. 1, 2 &3 had already paid more than the dues of the applicant bank on 21.11.2022. he entire outstanding amount had been repaid by the petitioners/defendant NO. 1,2& 3 in the loan account. Hence the claim of the petitioners/defendant No. 1, 2 & 3 are genuine.

¶24

In view of the above facts, the applicant bank is directed to issue No Due

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

Certificate to the petitioners/defendant No. 1, 2 & 3, because they had already paid more than outstanding dues. The applicant bank is also directed that after proper calculation, refund the extra amount already paid by the petitioners/defendant No. 1, 2 & 3 after adjusting court fee and other legal expenses only. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 42/2023 is hereby partially allowed, because authenticity of some documents are still subjudice.”

¶27

5. Alleging non-implementation of the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2024, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

6. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, UBI submits that the Bank has, in the meantime, preferred another interlocutory application registered as I.A. No. 24/2025 under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1993), for partial modification of the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A. No. 42/2023 and for compliance of the aforesaid order. Such interlocutory application was filed on 09.01.2025. It is the contention of Mr. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, UBI that the bank has not complied with the order dated 28.10.2024 for pendency of aforesaid I.A. No. 24/2025.

¶29

7. Countering such arguments, Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner company submits that a Bank cannot ignore a duly passed order by the statutory adjudicating authority taking ground of pendency of an interlocutory application, inasmuch as in I.A. No. 24/2025, preferred by the Bank, no interim order has been passed by the learned Tribunal till date. Thus, according to Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner company that the Bank is sitting over the order of the statutory authority. Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner company further contends that the application filed by the Bank is also not maintainable on the face of it.

¶30

8. This Court has perused the provisions of Section 19(25) of the Act, 1993 and perusal of the aforesaid provision, makes it abundantly clear that the learned DRT is

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

vested with wide power to pass order(s), so as to give effect to its own order or to prevent abuse of process and to secure interest of justice.

¶33

9. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is abundantly clear that the learned Tribunal shall have power to get its order dated 28.10.2024 implemented, inasmuch as, a specific order is issued by the learned Tribunal. It is an admitted position that as on date, except filing of an application by the Bank under Section 19(25) of the Act, 1993, the aforesaid order has not been challenged in the appellate forum.

¶34

10. Be that as it may, as the learned Tribunal is vested with power to get its order dated 28.10.2024 implemented, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court should not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather the matter be relegated back to the learned Tribunal to take a decision for implementation of the order dated 28.10.2024.

¶35

11. It is needless to say that the question of maintainability of I.A. No. 24/2025 filed by the Bank and the arguments of Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner company, are kept open and the same may be decided by the learned Tribunal, if urged before it.

¶36

12. As the matter is pending since 2023, this Court expects that the learned Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before the learned Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Guwahati on 17.06.2025 .

¶37

13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

M/S Excellent Dairy and Farming Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Excellent Dairy and Farming Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalini Das and Anr. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Rustam Ali Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Md. Khalil Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Bikash Saikia and Five Ors. Vs Ikbal Hussain and Seven Ors.

Ikbal Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mrs. Bamang Yayu and Anr. Vs Uco Bank and Anr.