M/S Kahaddarwal Automobiles Ltd. ... vs Chairman Debt Recovery Appl. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 238 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 772 of 2014
 

 
Appellant :- M/S Kahaddarwal Automobiles Ltd. And Anr.
 
Respondent :- Chairman Debt Recovery Appl. Tribunal Alld. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Tarun Varma
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

This intra-court appeal is against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.2014 dismissing Writ-C No.40212 of 2009 filed by the appellants for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 4.2.2009 and 24.7.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.

When the matter was taken up on 25.8.2014 following order was passed:-

"The question of maintainability of this appeal is under question.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to prepare the matter.

List this appeal in the next cause list."

Sri Varchasav Dwivedi, holding brief of Sri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal is no longer res integra as it is now settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1942 of 2008, Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 11.12.2009.

In Sheet Gupta (Supra) it was held as follows:-

"Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:

1.The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court;

2.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;

3.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court;

4.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;

5.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by

(i) the tribunal,

(ii) Court or

(iii) statutory arbitrator

made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India;

6.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of

(i) the Government or

(ii) any officer or

(iii) authority,

made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India." (Emphasis supplied)

As the learned Single Judge has passed order impugned in exercise of writ jurisdiction against an order of the tribunal, this intra-court appeal is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench.

The appeal is therefore dismissed as not maintainable.

Order Date :- 3.1.2023

piyush