Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shakuntla vs Union Bank Of India And Others on 4 March, 2025
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030317-DB
CWP-5980-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
114 CWP-5980-2025
Date of decision : 04.03.2025
Shakuntla
...Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India and others
.. Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present:- Ms. Geetanjali Bhatia, Advocate,
Mr. Abhisar Chaudhary, Advocate and
Ms. Ravisha Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satyapal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with
Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India.
Mr. Akaant Mittal, Advocate for the respondent-Bank.
***
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an SA bearing Diary No.552/2025 which is pending adjudication before the DRT-II. However, the same is not being listed due to non- functioning of DRT-II. She submits that petitioner may be protected till DRT-II resumes its functioning.
2. Heard.
3. It is settled law that the petitioner cannot be left remediless especially when the same has been provided by a Statute. We also draw our support from the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2021 in the case of 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2025 04:31:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030317-DB CWP-5980-2025 -2- 'State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India' Special Leave Petition (C) No.10911/2021. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"13. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stopgap arrangement, we request the concerned High Court(s) to entertain the matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, till further orders.
14. We make it clear that once the Tribunal(s) is/are constituted, the matters can be relegated to the Tribunals by the High Court(s)."
4. As DRT-II is stated to be non-functional, it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is protected for some time till the DRT-II resumes its functioning.
5. At this juncture, Mr. Satyapal Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General of India submits that the proposal for extending the additional charge of DRT-II to DRT-I has been sent to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
6. The petition is disposed of with a direction that no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of 15 days after the DRT-II resumes its functioning.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
March 04, 2025 JUDGE
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2025 04:31:26 :::