STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. INDERJIT POULTRY FARMS
LAWS(DR)-2014-4-6
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 09,2014

STATE BANK OF PATIALA Appellant
VERSUS
Inderjit Poultry Farms Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ranjit Singh, J. - (1.) APPEAL No. 27/2000 was filed by M/s Inderjit Poultry Farms and others against the order passed in O.A. No. 80/1997. The appellants were aggrieved against that part of the order whereby the Tribunal had allowed the claim of recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,71,297/ - along with pendente lite and future interest as, according to the appellants, the Tribunal below had no jurisdiction to entertain and try this case. This submission, however, was raised for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal and this was the objection raised by the respondent bank.
(2.) THE respondent bank had also filed an appeal (No. 21/2000) seeking modification of the order passed by the Tribunal below entitling the bank to an amount of Rs. 13,37,503/ - and future contractual interest which was to rest quarterly from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the entire amount. Notices were issued in both the appeals. Appeal No. 27/2000 came to be decided on 10.2.2010. In its order dated 10.2.2010, this Tribunal held that the Tribunal below had no jurisdiction to try this case and the decree passed by it was set aside. This was in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala & Ors. [I (2009) BC 705 (SC)]. The Appeal No. 21/2000 filed by the bank was accordingly disposed of with the direction to return the plaint of the bank to the Civil Court wherefrom it was transferred to the DRT.
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the orders passed in Appeal No. 21/2000, the bank filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court where efforts were made to settle the issue first, but, later, the impugned' order passed in Appeal No. 21/2000 has been set aside. The Hon'ble Court has found that the impugned order was devoid of any reasoning and so the same was set aside with the direction to rehear the matter and pass order afresh. The short order passed by the Hon'ble High Court reads as under: - Mr. S.C Dhewen, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office, Panchkula, and respondent No. 4 are present in Court. It is quite obvious that no settlement is possible. In view of the aforesaid, we have to adopt the first course of action as set out in our order dated 11.09.2013 i.e. to set aside the impugned order being devoid of any reasoning with a direction to rehear the matter and pass afresh order. Thus orders (Annexures P -4, P -5 and P -6) are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for taking a decision in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to beer their own costs. Parties to appear before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 11.11.2013.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.