Raman Naganlal Bohara vs H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 10229 Bom

            Digitally signed
            by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT   GOPAL
GOPAL       CHANDAN
CHANDAN     Date:
                                                   1          (909) wp-7275.22.doc
            2022.10.07
            14:31:46 +0530


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.7275 OF 2022

                    Raman Naganlal Bohara                                 : Petitioner
                          versus
                    H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.                                    : Respondent

                                                     -------
                    Mr. Miheer Jayakar a/w Mr. Gunjan Jayakar i/by Sunil Jayakar for
                    Petitioner.
                    Mr. Chetan C Agrawal for Respondent.
                    Mr. Anurag Shirke - Area Legal Manager - HDFC Bank present.

                                                        -------

                                                   CORAM :          K. R. SHRIRAM &
                                                                    A. S. DOCTOR, JJ.

                                                   DATE           : 04th OCTOBER 2022

                    P.C.


                    1           Petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning order dated

10th May 2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and order

dated 27th February 2015 (incorrectly mentioned as "2014" in the prayer

clause) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application

filed by Petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

2 Petitioner was originally Defendant in Original Application

No.242 of 2008 filed by Respondent-Bank in Debts Recovery Tribunal No.III

(DRT) for recovery of sum of Rs.29,81,299.54 plus interest. Petitioner

lgc 1/3 2 (909) wp-7275.22.doc

entered appearance on receipt of writ of summons through an advocate.

Petitioner had also filed certain application for interrogatories to be

received before filing written statement and was participating in the

proceedings before DRT. It seems, on certain dates due to personal health

of Petitioner, he could not remain present in DRT, and judgment dated 27 th

June 2014 came to be passed. It seems even the advocate did not remain

present for whatever reasons. Against the judgment, Petitioner filed

Miscellaneous Application for recalling the judgment and to hear the matter

afresh which application came to be rejected by order dated 27 th February

2015. Against that order, Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the DRAT.

Petitioner's Appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 10 th May 2022.

This is the background for Petitioner having approached this Court.

3 Having considered the matter for some time, without prejudice

to the rights and contentions of both the parties and keeping open all their

rights and contentions, by consent, both the impugned orders are hereby

quashed and set aside. Consequently the impugned order dated 27 th June

2014 is also hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded to DRT for

de-novo consideration of Original Application No.242 of 2008.

4 The DRT may pass such fresh order as it deems fit on the said

Original Application No.242 of 2008 in accordance with law.

lgc                                                                      2/3
                                  3         (909) wp-7275.22.doc




5              Petitioner's undertaking to remain present and proceed with

the matter either in person or through duly authorized advocate before DRT

is accepted.

6 The DRT is requested to dispose the Original Application as

early as possible preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.

7 In view of what is stated in Para 3 above, the Registrar, DRAT,

Mumbai is directed to return the deposit made by Petitioner pursuant to

order dated 09th October 2017 together with accumulated interest within

four weeks of receiving the application from Petitioner.

8 Petition stands disposed. No order as to costs.

9 We clarify that we have not made any observations on the

merits of the matter.

    (A. S. DOCTOR, J.)                                 (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)




lgc                                                                          3/3