Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Punjab National Bank – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties and appeal details (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant's arguments regarding interim orders (Para 2) |
| 3. court's request for expeditious consideration (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns order dated 17.08.2022, 12.02.2021, 21.05.2021 and 06.09.2021.
2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there are interim orders operating against the appellant, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant in recovery of their lawful dues. She submits that on 06.09.2021, the matter was deleted from the board of the Tribunal as the coram was not constituted.
3. We notice that the Tribunal's coram has now been constituted. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with a request to the Tribunal to consider the case of the appellant expeditiously. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of either party. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
Interim orders impacting financial recovery must be addressed expeditiously by the Tribunal, with no merit considerations made at this stage.
The court determined that procedural orders of the Tribunal seeking clarifications are not appealable and do not warrant immediate intervention by the High Court.
The court underscored the importance of expedient consideration by the Tribunal in matters affecting an individual's employment status and the requirement for timely responses from the respondents.
A petition can be deemed infructuous if the circumstances underlying the case have materially changed, affecting the necessity of the judicial intervention.
The court's decision was influenced by the operational status of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and the need to ensure the continuation of interim protection for the petitioner.
The petitioner should avail appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Act of 2002 to challenge the confirmation of sale by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Point of law : Order impugned cannot be faulted. In effect, the petitioners herein applied for review of an order that, legally, no longer existed. As a consequence, the petitioners’ application befo....
Interim observations in an appeal do not constitute a final opinion and must not affect the impartiality of the trial court's decision on pending applications under Order 39.
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
An appellate court will dismiss an appeal as infructuous when the main writ petition, from which the interim order was challenged, has already been disposed of by the original court.
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
