Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Aarati Agrawal vs Canara Bank on 28 February, 2024
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 28 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3285 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
M/S AARATI AGRAWAL A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI AKHILESH SHUKLA S/O
LATE SHRI VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA OFFICE AT 130
MALVIYA NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADITYA ADHIKARI - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ANAND
SAHU AND MS. SHIVANI SINGH SENGAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER
SPLSDARM BRANCH CANARA BANK BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. M/S SHRIMATI THE BIG SAREE MALL THROUGH
ITS PARTNERS SUNDARI LILWANI, RAMESH
LILWANI DINESH LILWANI MANISH LILWANI
AND VIJAY LILWANI SITUATED AT 20 NEW
MARKET, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUNADARI LILWANI W/O LATE NATHULAL
LI LWA N I R/O PLOT NO 70 WARD NO 4
AMARNATH HOUSING SOCIETY AMARNATH
COLONY DHAMKHEDA KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAMEHS LILWANI S/O LATE NATHULAL LILWANI
R/O PLOT NO 70 WARD NO 4 AMARNATH
HOUSING SOCIETY AMARNATH COLONY
DHAMKHEDA KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. MANISH LILWANI S/O LATE NATHULAL LILWANI
R/O PLOT NO 70 WARD NO 4 AMARNATH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHAM
THAKKER
Signing time: 3/1/2024
3:35:13 PM
2
HOUSING SOCIETY AMARNATH COLONY
DHAMKHEDA KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. VIJAY LILWANI S/O LATE NATHULAL LILWANI
R/O PLOT NO 70 WARD NO 4 AMARNATH
HOUSING SOCIETY AMARNATH COLONY
DHAMKHEDA KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SMT SIMRAN LILWANI W/O SHRI RAMESH
LI LWA N I R/O PLOT NO 70 WARD NO 4
AMARNATH HOUSING SOCIETY AMARNATH
COLONY DHAMKHEDA KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sheel Nagu
passed the following:
ORDER
The facts reveal that petitioner moved an objection in RC No. 533/2018
which was dismissed on 21.12.2023. Being aggrieved the petitioner assailed the
said order before DRT in Appeal No. 1/24 in which by order dated 15.01.2024,
the prayer for interim relief by the petitioner/objector was declined but the said
Appeal No. 1/24 is pending adjudication before DRT-Jabalpur. The petitioner
thereafter, approached DRAT-Allahabad in Appeal Dy. No. 147/2024 which
was dismissed on 01.02.2024 by passing the following order :
"Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 20 of the RDB
Act against the interim order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the
Tribunal below in Appeal No. 01 of 2024 (arising out of R.C. No.
533/2018 in O.A. No. 696/2017), whereby the interim relief
application has been rejected.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after
perusing the averment as made in the appeal, the present appeal is
finally disposed off with liberty to the appellant to move an
appropriate application before the Tribunal below for redressal
of his grievance."
2. This Court would not like to enter into merits of the rival claims since it
may prejudice the DRT which is seized of Appeal No. 1/24.
3. A bare perusal of impugned order reveals that order does not assign
any reason for rejection of appeal and thus, is a non speaking order.
4. Every judicial order is necessarily required to be attended with reasons
as held by Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and another
Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496, relevant extract of
which is reproduced below :
47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,
even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of
its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component
of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior
courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule
of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned
decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood
of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is
the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All
these decisions serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to
know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not
to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-
making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100
Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and
was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija
v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya
v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein
the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of
Human Rights which requires,"adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development
of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the
essence and is virtually a part of "due process".
5. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the matter, this petition is
disposes of with the following direction :
1. Impugned order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Appeal Dy. No.
147/2024 by DRAT-Allahabad stands set aside.
2. DRAT is directed to decide Appeal No. 147/2024 by passing a
speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of 15 days.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has express anxiety since steps are
being taken to disposses the petitioner/objector.
7. Needless to emphasize that even if dispossession takes place the same
would remain subject to outcome in Appeal No. 1/2024 arising out of RC No.
533/2018 in OA No. 696/2017 pending before DRT-Jabalpur.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shub
