Delhi High Court - Orders
Hdfc Bank Limited vs Vishal Hira Merchants Pvt Ltd & Ors on 5 September, 2022
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~31(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 845/2022 & CM APPL.36593/2022
HDFC BANK LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon and
Mr.Surendra Kumar, Advs.
versus
VISHAL HIRA MERCHANTS PVT LTD & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Data, Mr.Rajesh
Sharma and Mr. Karan Mehta, Advs. for R-
1, 4 & 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
% 05.09.2022
1. SA 300/2009 was preferred by the respondents before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, for a declaration that all actions and measures initiated by the petitioner against the respondents under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) including communication dated 24th October 2009, be declared illegal, null and void and unenforceable and be accordingly set aside and quashed. Attendant and concomitant reliefs were also sought. The appeal also incorporated a prayer for interim relief, for a restraint against the petitioner from taking coercive steps against the respondents during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Mr. Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 845/2022 Page 1 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.09.2022 12:45:25 as far back as on 26th November 2009, the learned DRT had fixed 1st December 2009 for pronouncement of judgment in SA 300/2009. His contention is that, believing that the judgment would be pronounced on the said date, the petitioner had undertaken not to take any coercive steps against the respondents.
3. Despite 13 years having passed since then, Mr. Tandon submits that there is no decision of the learned DRT in SA 300/2009 either on the final prayer in the appeal or on the prayer for interim relief contained therein.
4. Mr. Tandon's only prayer is, therefore, that the learned DRT be directed to pass orders either interlocutory or final, deciding the interim or final prayers contained in SA 300/2009, filed by the respondents, within a time bound frame.
5. Ordinarily, this Court does not fix time schedules for judicial or quasi-judicial authorities, lower in hierarchy, to take decisions on matters pending before them. This, however, is a case in which the learned DRT had, on 26th November 2009, specifically noted, in the order, that judgment would be pronounced in SA 300/2009 on 1st December 2009.
6. This Court cannot, therefore, countenance 13 years having passed without any order, interim or final, in SA 300/2009, by the DRT. In the process, what has happened is that the respondents continue to be the beneficiary of an undertaking given by the petitioner before the learned DRT on 26th November 2009, in the belief that judgment would be pronounced on 1st December 2009.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 845/2022 Page 2 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.09.2022 12:45:257. As such, the learned DRT is directed to pass orders, either interlocutory or final, in SA 300/2009, within a period of eight weeks from today.
8. In the event that the learned DRT finds itself inhibited or handicapped, for any reason, in passing such orders, a detailed order, setting out the reasons as to why the order cannot be passed would be rendered by the learned DRT.
9. The learned DRT would hear both sides and comply with the principles of natural justice, before taking a decision in terms of the aforesaid direction.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. Pending application also stands disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J SEPTEMBER 5, 2022/kr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 845/2022 Page 3 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.09.2022 12:45:25