Pankaj Parasmal Parekh vs Punjab National Bank on 14 February, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Pankaj Parasmal Parekh vs Punjab National Bank on 14 February, 2019

Bench: R.M.Chhaya

         C/SCA/6282/2018                              ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6282 of 2018

=============================================
                           PANKAJ PARASMAL PAREKH
                                    Versus
                            PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY R GUPTA(341) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
KULDEEP K ADESARA(9222) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR KM PARIKH(575) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
=============================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. B. MAYANI
                      Date : 14/02/2019
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) 1.0. Heard Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent Bank.

2.0. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.15 of 2014 and has also challenged the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2016 by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad and further prayed for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to the notice dated 25.3.2009.

3.0. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it clearly appears that the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 15 of 2014 challenging Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/6282/2018 ORDER the very notice dated 25.3.2009. The appeal came to be dismissed for default as the learned advocate for the petitioner or even proxy Advocate did not appear. The record thereafter indicates that the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Application No.3 of 2016 for condonation of delay, for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the restoration application. The said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2017, which is also impugned in this petition. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as far as Miscellaneous Application is concerned, the matter was adjourned to file reply still however on the same day at 12.50 a.m, the impugned order is passed.

4.0. Without expressing any opinion on merits and only with a view to see that the applicant gets an opportunity to redress his grievance before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on merits, the order dated 20.12.2017 whereby, the application for condonation of delay to restore the Appeal No.15 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. As far as order dated 14.09.2015 passed in Appeal No. 15 of 2014 is concerned, the same is not dealt with as the Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2016 for condonation of delay is restored. It would be open for the petitioner to press restoration application first. As far as prayer prayed for as regards notice dated 25.03.2009 is concerned, the same is the very subject matter of appeal and therefore, at this stage, such prayer cannot be granted by this Court. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside and proceedings of Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/6282/2018 ORDER 2016 stands restored back to the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Ahmedabad. The Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Ahmedabad shall after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties, pass an appropriate order on Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2016. It is however clarified that the respective parties at liberty to take all available contentions and the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad shall decide the same in accordance with law and without in any way being influenced by the present order as expeditiously as possible. Even at the cost of repetition, it is provided that order dated 14.09.2015 is not dealt with by this Court as the restoration application is pending at large before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. With this, present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted. No costs.

sd/ (R.M.CHHAYA, J) sd/ (V. B. MAYANI, J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court