WPMB/282/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3057 UK

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL


         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                 AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL




             WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 282 OF 2023


                         10TH OCTOBER, 2023



Sahota Seeds Limited                ......                 Petitioner


Verses


Punjab National Bank & another ......                    Respondents



Counsel for the petitioner     :   Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned
                                   counsel

Counsel for the respondents    :   Mr. Shobhit Joshi, learned counsel
                                   holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi,
                                   learned counsel for the respondent
                                   No. 1


The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)


             The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to seek the following relief :


      "i)    Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
             mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2
             herein to take a decision on I.A. No. 136 of
             2023 filed by the petitioner in OA No. 532 of
             2021 after hearing all the parties concern on
                            2




          I.A. No. 136 of 2023 before hearing the final
          arguments in OA No. 532 of 2021."



2)        The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

has denied certain documents relied upon by the

respondent bank in the Original Application preferred

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the

loaned amount.


3)        The petitioner, who is defending the said

Original Application, moved an application, being I.A.

No. 136 of 2023, in O.A. No. 532 of 2021, requesting

that the witness of the respondent bank be summoned

for cross-examination.    However, the said application

has not been decided by the DRT, and the DRT has fixed

the matter for final hearing of the arguments in the

Original Application.


4)        We are not inclined to entertain this petition.

It is not for this Court to interfere with the ongoing

proceedings before the DRT.     Such like interference at

the interlocutory stages would completely defeat the

purpose of the enactment of the Recovery of Debts and

Bankruptcy Act, as it impinges the progress of the

proceedings. Moreover, appellate remedy is available to
                            3




the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal. The same has not been invoked.



5)         The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.


6)        Stay Application (IA No. 01 of 2023) also

stands disposed of.



                                      ________________
                                      VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                                  _________________
                                  RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 10TH OCTOBER, 2023 Negi