Vijenra Toshniwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7405 MP

  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH

                        WP No.23997/2021
   Vijenra Toshniwal & Anr. vs. Additional Collector, Indore & Anr.

Indore, dated :15.11.2021
      Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the petitioners.
       Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

With the consent, heard finally.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of District Magistrate, he filed a stay application under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Tribunal after dismissal of stay application, he filed a Review Petition no.42/2021. However, said review petition is not decided because Tribunal is not functional in Madhya Pradesh at present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on judgment of Dilip Kumar vs. The Union of India passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1029/2018 by High Court of Patna submits that review is very much maintainable before the Tribunal. Thus, till the time stay application is decided, in the said review (which will be filed within seven working days from today), he may be protected.

Prayer is opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bank by contending that the review before the Tribunal is not maintainable. Contrary view is also taken by certain other High Courts. The petitioner has remedy of appeal before the DRAT.

We are not inclined to give any finding whether the review is maintainable or not. The tribunal is best suited to decide said aspect because review of its order is prayed for.

Since the Tribunal is not functional, we deem it proper to disposed of this petition as under:

(I) The petitioner shall file interim application alongwith copy of this order before the Tribunal within seven working days from today, failing which, the interim protection will come to an end automatically.

(II) The Tribunal soon after becoming functional, shall take up the said application and decide it in accordance with law expeditiously.

(III) Till said the application is decided, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

The petition is disposed of without expression any opinion on the merits of the case.

Certified copy, today.

(Sujoy Paul) (Shailendra Shukla) Judge Judge

amit Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

AMIT PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=18db6b55824fa1834dc7e61d06 ed3c79a81bc156ec0309c5245d47a0a526

KUMAR 04de, pseudonym=713D9BD68EDDADCD6B88 DA2B1BCDCFC0369478F5, serialNumber=62B9B1A094FCDF2F0107 E91326BC51DC9DCF83F25C9D67245FE3 BCCFD0F2DB67, cn=AMIT KUMAR Date: 2021.11.16 13:33:04 +05'30'