Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12519/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12519 of 2008
=========================================================
SIDDHI
VINAYAK DRY FRUIT PROCESSORS PVT LTD & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
BANK OF INDIA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SANGITA C ATHAVLE for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 14/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for the relief, inter alia,
to direct the respondent Bank to release the property B to the
petitioner on depositing the amount of Rs.11.25 lac with the
respondent Bank.
Upon
hearing Mr.Med, learned Counsel with Ms.Athavle for the petitioner,
it appears that the matter is at large pending before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal in the proceedings of Appeal No.22/2006. The
injunction was initially not granted by the DRT, whereas the
appellate Tribunal (DRAT) granted injunction on condition to deposit
the amount of Rs.11.25 lac.
The
contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner would deposit
the amount if the property is to be released in his favour.
Such
contention, if accepted, would result into diluting the order, on
the stand which is sought to be canvassed, but was not accepted by
the Tribunal. Further in a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, if the matter is examined as per the settled
legal position for judicial review, it cannot be said that there is
any error apparent on the face of record, nor the discretions
exercised by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal are so perverse,
which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
Apart
from the above, in any event, the matter is still pending before the
Tribunal. The petitioner, if desirous to buy the property by
offering a better price, they may move the Tribunal, but the order
which is passed by the Appellant Tribunal does not call for
interference. As the matter is at large pending before the
Tribunal, if the petitioner is desirous to get the information, it
would be required for the petitioner to move appropriate application
on such aspects and after hearing both the sides, the matter can be
considered by the Tribunal.
In
view of the above, the petition is not entertained and hence,
dismissed.
14.10.2008 (Jayant
Patel, J.)
vinod
Top