M/S. Pooja Selection vs Canara Bank on 7 March, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

M/S. Pooja Selection vs Canara Bank on 7 March, 2019

Bench: R.M.Chhaya, S.H.Vora

        C/SCA/13122/2018                                ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13122 of 2018
==========================================================
                    M/S. POOJA SELECTION
                            Versus
                         CANARA BANK
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL K SHAH(803) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SUSHMA S SHAH(806) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTHA SAMAL(3089) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS NISHA M PARIKH(2397) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA

                           Date : 07/03/2019

                          ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Heard Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the petitioner and Mr. Siddhartha Samal for respondent No.1.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.3.2018 passed by the DRAT in Original Application No.133 of 2016.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the judgment and order only when the demand notice dated 29.5.2018 came to be served. It is a matter of record that the summons was duly served upon the respondent. However, the petitioner has preferred not to appear before the DRT.

Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/13122/2018 ORDER

4. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy as provided under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Mr. Sunil K. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the applicant would file appropriate appeal if sometime is granted.

5. It may be noted that present petition was filed on 24.8.2018 and the same is being disposed of today. Prima facie, it also appears that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the impugned judgment and order passed by the DRT only on receipt of the demand notice and therefore, if any appeal is filed by the petitioner under section 20 of the Act latest by 30.3.2019, the same may be treated as if it is filed within the time. The petitioner shall, however, comply with all other requirements, more particularly, requirement of section 21 of the Act. The petitioner shall also file an application for condonation of delay and the time consumed for prosecuting this matter before this court shall be considered while considering such application for condonation of delay. This court has not gone into the merits of the matter. The Tribunal shall decide the appeal on its own merits if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner.

6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J) (S.H.VORA, J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court