Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mrs. Kanchan Rustagi & Anr vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 23 December, 2021

Author: Vipin Sanghi

Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh

                          $~1.
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     W.P.(C) 14537/2021 and C.M. No. 45717-18/2021
                                MRS. KANCHAN RUSTAGI & ANR.                   ..... Petitioners
                                                  Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
                                           versus

                                PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.               ..... Respondents
                                             Through: Ms. Suruchi Kumari, Advocate for
                                                        respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
                                                        Mr. Rishabh Sahu Adv for
                                                        Respondent No. 3/ HDFC.
                                                        Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw and Mr. Mohd
                                                        Ashaab, Advocate for respondent
                                                        Nos. 6 & 7.
                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                                   ORDER

% 23.12.2021

1. The present order is being passed in continuation of the last order dated 17.12.2021. The order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 10911/2021, titled State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India dated 16.12.2021 has been placed before us, and we have perused the same. A perusal of the same shows that the Supreme Court requested the concerned High Courts to entertain the matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, till further orders. However, from the order it appears that the notification issued by the Central Government on 13.12.2021 granting charge in respect of DRTs, where no Presiding Officers are available, to other DRTs in the country was not placed before the Supreme Court.

2. It is not in dispute that in respect of the three DRTs in Delhi, additional charge has been entrusted to other DRTs. It also appears that the Supreme Court has not expressed any view, not even prima facie view, with regard to the entrustment of charge to other DRTs - which are functional, in respect of DRTs where Presiding Officers are not available.

3. We may notice that the Kerala High Court has taken a view in WA No. 384 of 2021 titled M/s. Kerala Fashion Jewellery Vs. The Union of India decided on 23.03.2021, that the Union of India cannot authorize the Presiding Officers of the DRTs situated in other jurisdictional States to attend to cases before DRTs within the State. However, the provisions of Sections 17 A(1A) & 17 (2) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993, have not been considered in the said decision.

4. We, therefore, have some doubts with regard to the correctness of the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court with due respect. In these circumstances, since the DRTs in Delhi have become functional, we leave it open to the petitioner to approach the DRT in Delhi for redressal of its grievances. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 23, 2021 aks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:24.12.2021 20:07:14