Gujarat High Court
Gautambhai Govindlal Shah vs Bank Of Baroda on 26 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15342 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
3
==========================================================
GAUTAMBHAI GOVINDLAL SHAH
Versus
BANK OF BARODA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA R PARIKH(8769) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NALINI S LODHA(2128) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5,6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Looking to the nature of the litigation and the course of action adopted by the petitioner, in order to protract the recovery proceedings of the respondent-Bank of Baroda, the matter has been heard today at length and is decided finally.
2. RULE. Learned advocate Ms.Lodha appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-Bank of Baroda. Though served none appears on behalf of respondent No.3.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined
3. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"8-(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in I.A. No.656 of 2023 (C.O.D.) in Appeal No.192 of 2014; and further be pleased to direct the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to hear the Appeal No.192 of 2014 which was at the stage of final hearing within a stipulated period of time;"
4. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings arise from the order passed in Original Application (O.A.) No.10 of 1997 under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ("the RDDBFI Act" for short) and relates to the recovery proceedings of Rs.44,22,993.88. There is a chequered history to the litigation, which is stated in brief for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition.
5. Vide interim order dated 28.10.2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the action of the recovery by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner. The same has been extended on the request of the petitioner to see that the unserved respondent Nos.2 to 8 (except respondent No.3 is served). Since no steps were taken, this Court had passed an Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined order dated 25.06.2025 and directed the learned advocate Mr.Parikh appearing on behalf of the petitioner to give details of the unserved respondents. However, no details were tendered, and it was submitted that they have passed away long back before filing of the writ petition. Since, we had noticed the conduct of the petitioner in prolonging the matter, in order to see that the interim order against the recovery is stayed, the matter had taken up for final disposal since the unserved respondents were only the formal parties.
6. It appears that the petitioner filed an Appeal No.192 of 2014 under the provisions of Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act against the order dated 06.06.2006 in O.A. No.10 of 1997 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ahmedabad ("the DRT"). It is very interesting to note that since there was delay in filing the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay in the aforesaid appeal being M.A. No.561 of 2012 in Appeal No.192 of 2014. Vide order dated 21.08.2015, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, ("the DRAT" for short) allowed the aforesaid application of condonation of delay i.e. M.A. No.561 of 2012 by directing the petitioner to deposit Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined Rs.5,00,000/- towards to show his bona fide towards his debt in the form of Demand Draft with Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai. Accordingly, it appears that thereafter, the aforesaid amount was reduced by the DRAT, Mumbai to Rs.2,00,000/-,vide order dated 01.10.2015, which the petitioner deposited before the DRAT, Mumbai.
7. During pendency of the aforesaid Appeal No.192 of 2014, M.A. No.632 of 2012 for Waiver of Deposit (WoD) was filed and by the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the DRAT, Mumbai, it was opined by the DRAT, Mumbai that since 2012 the appeal is pending and the delay has been condoned on the petitioner having deposited Rs.2,00,000/-, it would be apposite that the respondent-Bank may file a reply on the appeal as expeditiously as possible and it was clarified that no further time would be granted and the parties shall get ready for hearing on the appeal itself.
8. The order-sheet reflects that thereafter, the matter was heard by the DRAT, Mumbai. It is also not denied by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the appeal had reached the stage of the rebuttal arguments of both the parties. At that stage, the petitioner again filed an Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined application seeking condonation of delay being I.A. No.656 of 2023 in Appeal No.192 of 2014. The first paragraph of the aforesaid I.A. is incorporated as under:
"MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP:
I, the Appellant Mr. Gautam S/o. Govindlal Shah, Appellant above named adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at Ahmedabad do hereby state andsubmit that the Appellant is preferring the present Application for Condonation of Delay of 2159 days in preferring the Appeal No.192 of 2014 on 21.06.2012."
9. Thus, the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay of 2159 days in preferring Appeal No.192 of 2014, after final arguments are being heard by the DRAT, Mumbai and despite knowing the fact that his appeal for condonation of delay was already decided, pursuant to which the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and in the Waiver of Deposit application i.e. M.A. No.632 of 2012 (WoD) the DRAT, Mumbai has clarified that the matter would be heard expeditiously. This is an absolute abuse of process of law on the part of the petitioner, as it was impermissible under the law to file an application for condonation of delay, that too in an appeal which was being heard finally and also after the condonation of delay application - M.A. No.561 of 2012 was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2015.
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined
10. The DRAT, Mumbai accordingly, rejected the aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay of 2159 days on 08.07.2024 by observing thus :
"... ... ... Despite that, the appellant has successfully protracted the litigation for about 27 years. The delay cannot be condoned and hence the application for condonation of delay filed as I.A. No.656/2023 stands dismissed.
Given the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appeal is also dismissed."
The aforesaid the impugned order has given rise to the present writ petition.
11. When the learned advocate for the petitioner was confronted with all the aforesaid facts, more particularly filing of the application (at Page 18) seeking condonation of delay of 2159 days, after the earlier condonation of delay application (i.e. M.A. No.561 of 2012) was allowed vide order dated 21.08.2015, he has very fairly submitted that he is not aware as to why the petitioner had filed this application again for seeking condonation of delay. However, it is submitted that the DRAT, Mumbai fell in error in dismissing the appeal also since the appeal was at the stage of final hearing. Thus, it is urged that the present petition may be allowed.
Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined
12. Vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms.Lodha appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank has submitted that in fact the petitioner has been avoiding to pay the dues of the respondent-Bank since more than 25 years by protracting the litigation on frivolous grounds. She has also submitted that the petitioner has tried to mislead the DRAT, Mumbai as well as this Court and since his other appeals are already dismissed by the DRAT, Mumbai. She has urged that the present petition may be rejected.
13. The following proceedings are initiated by the petitioner for delaying the recovery by the respondent-Bank.
14. The dispute emanates from O.A No.10 of 1997 before the DRT, Ahmedabad, for recovery of amount of Rs.44,22,993.88 from the petitioner and the private respondents. By the order dated 06.06.2006 the same was allowed. Thereafter, Recovery Proceedings No.220 of 2006 were also initiated before the DRT, Ahmedabad, and a Demand Notice was also issued on 28.06.2006 by the DRT, Ahmedabad.
15. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Application No.57 of 2009 seeking cancellation of the Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined aforesaid final order dated 06.06.2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2012 by the DRT, Ahmedabad.
16. It is pertinent to note that simultaneously, the the petitioner preferred Appeal No.10 of 2011 challenging Recovery Proceedings No.220 of 2006, the same was also dismissed by the DRT, Ahmedabad vide order dated 25.05.2012.
17. The record shows that the petitioner approached the DRAT, Mumbai by preferring Appeal No.162 of 2012 challenging the order dated 01.05.2012 passed by the DRT, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No.57 of 2009.
18. Secondly, the petitioner also preferred Appeal No.163 of 2012 before the DRAT, Mumbai, whereby the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the DRT, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.10 of 2011 was challenged.
19. Another appeal being Appeal (Lodging) No.312 of 2012 along with M.A. No.561 of 2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, was filed before the DRAT, Mumbai, whereby the order dated 06.06.2006 passed in O.A. No.10 of 1997 was challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner withdrew the aforesaid Appeal No.162 of 2012 as well as Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined Appeal No.163 of 2012 filed before the DRAT, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that he withdrew the appeals under a bona fide legal advice.
20. The aforesaid Appeal (Lodging) No.312 of 2012 was finally given regular number being Appeal No.192 of 2014.
21. Thus, the Appeal No.192 of 2014, unquestionably was filed after delay of 2159 days and by the order dated 21.08.2015 passed in M.A. No.561 of 2012 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 2159 days, the DRAT, Mumbai allowed the same by directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was further reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-. , and accordingly, the appeal was further heard on merits, as clarified by the DRAT, Mumbai vide order dated 23.11.2022 passed in M.A. No.632 of 2012 (WoD) i.e. the application for Waiver of Deposit filed under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act. Despite this position having being clarified and Original Appeal No.192 of 2014 was kept for rebuttal of final arguments, the petitioner filed I.A. No.656 of 2023 in Appeal No.192 of 2014 for the very same prayer, as mentioned hereinabove, for seeking condonation of delay of 2159 days in preferring Appeal No.192 of 2014.
Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined
22. When the subsequent application of the petitioner seeking condonation was rejected by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the captioned writ petition, wherein an interim order on the recovery of the outstanding amount was passed and thereafter the petitioner did not conduct the matter. We find that by filing the aforementioned applications, the petitioner has absolutely abused the process of law in order to protract the recovery of the respondent-Bank, which emanated from the order passed on 06.06.2006, that too in O.A. No.10 of 1997.
23. The DRAT, Mumbai rejected the aforesaid application - I.A. No.656 of 2023 by the order dated 08.07.2024 by recording that "the appellant has successfully protracted the litigation for about 27 years", however, the DRAT, Mumbai, in our opinion, has committed an error in dismissing the main appeal itself, which was still kept for final arguments by the DRAT, Mumbai. Thus, only error which was committed by the DRAT, Mumbai, was dismissing Appeal No.192 of 2014. The DRAT, Mumbai ought to have further directed the hearing of Appeal No.192 of 2014 instead of dismissing it and after hearing the respective parties on merits, which was being argued for final hearing stage, it was Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined not open for the DRAT, Mumbai to dismiss the appeal while dismissing I.A. No.656 of 2023 moved in Appeal No.192 of 2014 seeking condonation of delay.
24. Hence, the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in I.A. No.656 of 2023 (CoD) in Appeal No.192 of 2014 is required to be set aside to the extent of dismissing the main appeal - Appeal No.192 of 2014. We direct that Appeal No.192 of 2014 shall be restored to its original final and the hearing shall start from the stage it was stopped.
25. In view of the conduct of the petitioner in protracting the proceedings for so many years, we direct that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lac) as costs, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai within a period of 02 (two) weeks, failing which the DRAT, Mumbai shall enforce the recovery of Rs.44,22,993.88 from the petitioner. In case, such amount is deposited, we request the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to dispose of Appeal No.192 of 2014 within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties shall fully cooperate in the proceedings before the DRAT, Mumbai.
Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15342/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined
26. With the above observations, the present petition is PARTLY ALLOWED. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
***
NVMEWADA/6
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:52:06 IST 2025