Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)

1. A grievance, which is voiced in the present application, is that despite the fact that the petitioner herein - original applicant has filed the Original Application before the learned Debts Recover Tribunal II, Ahmedabad in 2015 with a request for appointment of receiver permitting the Bank to realize its dues by selling 40 hypothicated vehicles and despite the fact that in the order dated 10/02/2016 the learned Counsel for the defendant stated, during the argument that the petitioner - original applicant Bank may recover its dues by selling 40 hypothicated vehicles and the defendant has no objection for taking possession of the 40 hypothicated vehicles and to sell them to realize its dues, no further order is passed by the learned tribunal and in absence of any further order passed by the learned tribunal, to that extent, the defendant is not allowing the petitioner - original applicant to take HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 27 00:08:33 IST 2016 possession of the 40 hypothicated vehicles and to sell it and consequently realize its dues. It is submitted that despite the above the learned tribunal by order dated 10/02/2016 adjourned the matter, for order on 16/02/2016. It is submitted by Shri Panesar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original applicant that in fact thereafter the matter was not notified on board on 16/02/2016, though by order dated 10/02/2016 it was ordered. It is submitted that however subsequently hand written order dated 16/02/2016 is transcribed in the certified copy supplied by the learned tribunal, which was applied on 04/06/2016, the copy of which was delivered on 14/09/2016. It is submitted that, as such, when earlier in the month of March, 2016, when the petitioner

- original applicant applied for the certified copy of the order there was no reference to any order dated 16/02/2016 (hand written order). According to Shri Panesar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original applicant the same might have been transcribed subsequently. He has categorically stated at the bar that the matter was never notified on board on 16/02/2016. If that is so, it is a very serious matter and it may be required to be viewed very seriously. He has further submitted that even thereafter also no order has been passed by the learned tribunal on the prayer of the petitioner - original applicant to appoint the receiver so as to enable the petitioner - original applicant to recover its dues by selling 40 hypothicated vehicles and the resultant effect is the Bank is suffering. He has stated at the bar that approximately 197 matters are pending before the learned tribunal, which are undated and are now listed by the learned tribunal on board stating that no specific dates are given. Meaning thereby, no dates are given and no interim orders are HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 27 00:08:33 IST 2016 passed in any such applications. Under the circumstances and so as to prima facie satisfy ourselves on the submission made by Shri Panesar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original applicant recorded hereinabove, stand over to 28/09/2016.