TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) BY consent of parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and is disposed of along with the application for grant of interim relief being G. A. No. 235 of 2000.

( 2 ) ). This appeal is preferred against an interim order passed by a learned Judge of this Court in ALP No. 216 of 1999.

( 3 ) ). The order under appeal runs as under :-"there will be an interim order to the effect that there will be a stay of hearing of the pending proceedings before the learned Tribunal. The interim order, if any, passed by the Tribunal shall continue without prejudice to the rights and contentions that this application is not maintainable. Directions for filing affidavits given :-A/o. is to be filed after the one week after the vacation, reply one week thereafter, liberty to mention. This matter is adjourned sine die after the Supreme Court Judgment. "

( 4 ) ). Mr. Shib Das Banerjee appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted before us that no appeal lies against the aforesaid order passed under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. He further urged that even assuming that an appeal lies against an order passed under Clause 13, then also the appeal cannot be filed against the interim order staying the proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "debt Recovery Act") till the decision is arrived at on the application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent as the same cannot be construed to be a "judgment" within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letter Patent in view of the fact that no rights have been decided by the Trial Court. In support of these contentions, strong reliance was placed to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asrumati Devi v. Rupendra Deb. AIR 1953 Supreme Court 198. In order to decide the questions raised by Mr. Banerjee on the entertainability of this appeal by us in the exercise of the power under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, we will deal with some facts which would be required for decision on this question. In or about November, 1998 the respondents instituted a suit in this Court for declaration and injunction and also for a money decree against the Vysya Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank/appellant ). After filing the suit, an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the respondents praying for an order of injunction, restraining the Banks from dealing with the securities of the respondents held by the Bank/appellant till the disposal of the suit. Upon the application for injunction a learned Judge of this Court had passed an ad interim order of status quo with regard to the securities of the respondents till the disposal of the application for injunction. On the returnable date, the interim order was modified in part. Against the said order, an appeal was taken to the Division Bench of this Court which was disposed of by an order dated 31st March, 1999. In the month of September, 1999 the respondents moved an application under clause 13 of the Letters Patent being ALP No. 216 of 1999. In the said application the respondents, inter alia, prayed that the proceedings filed by the Bank/appellant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being C. A. No. 155 of 1999 (Vysya Bank v. Shankaralal and Company and Ors.) be transferred to this Court and pending disposal of clause 13 petition, all further proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal be stayed. By the impugned order, as noted herein earlier, the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was stayed till the disposal of the clause 13 petition. As noted herein earlier, it has been contended by Mr. Banerjee that no appeal lies against order passed under clause 13 of the Letters Patent. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Banerjee. To decide this question, the Court needs to consider whether the impugned order decides any right or controversy or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document