Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, POONAM A. BAMBA
Sourabh Shrivastava And Another – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM No.18438/2022
1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6109/2022 & CM No.18437/2022[application filed on behalf of the petitioners for interim directions(s)]
2. Mr Sumit Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court, as, in effect, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-III, Delhi is not functioning.
2.1. The reason that Mr Sinha makes this submission is that the urgent applications are not being heard.
2.2. We are told that the Presiding Officer, who has been given additional charge, because of case load, is not able to hear even those applications, where urgent relief is sought.
3. Ms Shruti Shivkumar, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1/Union of India (UOI), says that although the Presiding Officers have been appointed for the DRTs, including the concerned DRT i.e., DRT-III, the officers appointed have been given the leeway of one month to take charge.
4. Mr Sinha says that an advance copy of the present writ was served on the standing counsels of the respondents, which includes the concerned banks. However, as noticed above, save and except respondent no.1/UOI, there is no r
Courts can issue directions for urgent relief when the functioning of tribunals is delayed.
The court emphasized timely hearings and intervention in cases where lower tribunals fail to function, maintaining status quo on property until hearings are conducted.
High Court dismisses petition directing party to pursue remedies in functioning Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Ensuring access to justice by addressing the lack of Presiding Officers in the DRTs.
Petition closed as DRT functional; liberty to pursue applications before tribunal.
Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, where DRT has exceeded in exercising its jurisdiction.
The court considered the jurisdictional issue of the DRT's decision on the question of title and the impact of the vacancy in the office of the Chairperson of the DRAT(M) on the petitioner's appeal.
The court highlighted the importance of timely action by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in processing pending applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
