Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Bank Of India vs M/S Sharda Ginning Pressing And Oil Mill on 1 August, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 1175/2014
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/09/2013
IN CWP NO. 4399/2011 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH)
STATE BANK OF INDIA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
M/S SHARDA GINNING PRESSING AND OIL MILLS RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
WITH
SLP(C) NO. 8026/2014
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 01/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Chaurasiya, Adv.
Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv.
for M/s Mitter & Mitter & Co., Adv.
Mr. M. Dutta, Adv.
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
Mr. Rajkumar Kaushik, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAKHINA
Date: 2016.08.04
12:15:18 IST
Reason:
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C) NO. 1175/2014
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. SLP(C) NO.8026/2014 List the matter after ten (10) days. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7244 OF 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1175/2014] STATE BANK OF INDIA ...APPELLANT VERSUS M/S SHARDA GINNING PRESSING AND OIL MILLS ...RESPONDENT ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Having perused the order of the High Court under challenge as well as the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, we do not find that deduction of rate of interest from contracted rate to 10% as has been done was justified, particularly, as the O.A. was pending. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal while hearing a Securitization 2 Appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Reinforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ought not to have adjudicated a subject matter which was pending in the O.A. We, therefore, allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI AUGUST 01, 2016