Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh Takhar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR512
Author: M.S. Gill
Bench: M.S. Gill
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Although this matter comes up for disposal of CM. No. 15659 of 1999 filed by the petitioners for extension of time fixed by the Court on 14.5.1999 for deposit of Rs. 4 lacs which they had undertaken to do, but in view of the objection raised by Shri J.C. Batra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, arguments have been heard on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.
2. A perusal of the record shows that after having filed appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act is not functional.
3. At the motion hearing, the Court felt persuaded to issue notice in view of the undertaking given by the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lacs with respondent No. 4 i.e., the Bank of Punjab within a period of one month. The order dated 14.5.1999 passed by the Bench reads as under:-
"Present: Mr. R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate. Petitioners through their counsel have undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with respondent No. 4 within a period of one month from today. Notice of motion for 14.7.1999. Till further orders, auction fixed for 21.5.1999 shall remain stayed."
4. The petitioners did not deposit the amount in terms of the undertaking given before the Court but just before the expiry of one month's period, they filed CM. No. 14235 of 1999 seeking extension of time for deposit of the amount. In that application, it was mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal has become functional and it has fixed the date of hearing as 24.6.1999. That application was withdrawn by the petitioners on 11.6.1999 and it was disposed of as such.
5. However, after another one month, they filed this application for extension of the time for deposit of the amount in terms of the undertaking given before the Court.
6. Shri R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, made strenuous efforts to convince us that notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners, the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and extend the period specified in its order dated 14.5.1999 for deposit of Rs. 4 lacs, but we have not felt persuaded to accept his submission. Admitted the Appellate Tribunal is seized with the appeal filed by the petitioners. It has already issued notice and fixed the date of hearing. Therefore, we do not find any justification to issue an interim order which may amount to usurpation of the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The reason which may have prompted the Court to entertain the petition on 14.5.1999 i.e. non-functioning of the Appellate Tribunal does not exist as on date. Therefore, there is no justification to exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only for the purpose of giving a licence to the petitioners to avoid compliance ' of the statutory requirement contained in the Act.
7. We also do not find any warrant to extend the period specified in the Court's order dated 14.5.1999 in view of the fact that the petitioners had made similar prayer in C.M. No. 14235 of 1999 which was withdrawn on 11.6.1999. In our considered view, this entire exercise has been undertaken by the petitioners to delay the deposit of the amount in terms of the undertaking given before the Court. Thus, there is no valid ground to entertain their prayer for extension of time.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition as well as the application are dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition or the CM. shall not, in any way, adversely affect adjudication of the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Appellate Tribunal.