SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The appeal is clearly not maintainable as it arises out of the rejection of an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) The objection is taken by the respondents on the strength of a judgment reported at AIR 1953 SC 198 (Asrumati Debi v. Rupendra Deb) . In that case, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed as not maintainable an appeal taken against an order made by a single Bench on the Original Side under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. The Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the Division Bench.
(3.) The appellant comes forward with two judgments rendered in rather unusual circumstances and it is evident that these judgments may have been unearthed with considerable industry. In the first of the judgments, reported at (2000) 2 CHN 679, proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal instituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 had been stayed as an interim measure on an application for transfer of such proceedings. The Court held that the order impugned was without jurisdiction as this Court could never have entertained an application for transfer of proceedings under the said Act of 1993 to this Court or any other civil Court.;