Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 836 MP
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2022
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 6065 of 2021
(BANK OF BARODA Vs DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DRAT) AND OTHERS)
Indore, Dated : 18-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Kshitij Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Phadke, Advocate for the respondents.
Heard learned counsels.
The Tribunal by the impugned order has waived the condition of a pre- deposit while entertaining the appeal. The same is sought to be challenged
herein.
T he learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 548.
In the said judgment, since the amount due from the appellant therein had not been determined, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the clause for pre-deposit is imminent. However, the facts in the instant case are different. The demand notice was for a sum of Rs.1,38,66,818/-. By sale of the property, the Bank has recovered a sum of Rs.1,65,10,000/- namely they have
recovered much more than what is due to them. Therefore, prima-facie we are of the view that the order does not call for any interference. However, the matter requires to be considered finally.
W e do not find any reason to stop the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal shall continue to hear the matter on merit. Any decision to be rendered by the Appellate Authority will be subject to further orders of this Court.
Issue rule nisi.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (PRANAY VERMA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Date: 2022.01.20 10:14:30 IST
krj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Date: 2022.01.20 10:14:30 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!