Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, R. T. Vachhani, JJ.
Gautambhai Govindlal Shah – Petitioner
Versus
Bank Of Baroda & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No.15342 of 2024
Decided On : 26-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Aditya R Parikh
For the Respondent: Ms Nalini S Lodha
The court affirmed that abuse of legal process to delay recovery proceedings is impermissible and emphasized the necessity of balancing procedural integrity with substantive justice.
Headnote:(A) Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 20 - Writ petition for quashing order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and directing to hear pending appeal - Protraction of recovery proceedings established - Delay condonation application dismissed by DRAT, leading to petition for judicial review - Matter finally resolved with costs imposed on petitioner for prolonged litigation. (Paras 1, 10, 24)
(B) Judicial review - Court opines that both the procedural and substantive rights must be balanced, and also stresses on avoiding abuse of legal process to prolong litigation without justifiable cause. (Paras 1, 23)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought to quash a DRAT order dismissing his appeal and its corresponding delay condonation application, placing the amount owed at Rs.44,22,993.88 from a 1997 recovery proceeding. (Paras 4, 8)
Findings of Court:
Court found that the DRAT committed an error in dismissing the case instead of simply addressing the delay issue in the appeal at the final hearing stage. (Paras 10, 23)
Issues: Main issues involved the conduct of the petitioner in prolonging litigations and the propriety of the DRAT's dismissal of the appeal while it was still under final arguments. (Paras 10, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that the DRAT should have continued with the hearing of the appeal rather than dismissing it outright and noted the misuse of legal provisions by the petitioner to avoid recovery. (Paras 24, 25)
Result: Petition partly allowed; appeal restored for hearing, and costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed. (Paras 24, 26)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. proceedings heard and decided. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner prayed for specific relief. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. details of proceedings and interim orders. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. application for condonation of delay analyzed. (Para 7 , 9 , 21) |
| 5. opposition to petitioner's claims. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. history of petitioner’s litigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. further appeals and their outcomes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. court's observations on protraction of litigation. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. order and implications of the judgment. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. Looking to the nature of the litigation and the course of action adopted by the petitioner, in order to protract the recovery proceedings of the respondent-Bank of Baroda, the matter has been heard today at length and is decided finally.
2. RULE. Learned advocate Ms.Lodha appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-Bank of Baroda. Though served none appears on behalf of respondent No.3.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“8-(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in I.A. No.656 of 2023 (C.O.D.) in Appeal No.192 of 2014; and further be pleased to direct the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to hear the Appeal No.192 of 2014 which was at the stage of final hearing within a stipulated period of time;”
4. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings arise from the order passed in Original Application (O.A.) No.10 of 1997 under the provisions of the RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT , 1993 (“the RDDBFI Act” for short) and relates to the recovery proceedings of Rs.44,22,993.88. There is a chequered history to the litigation, which is stated in brief for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition.
5. Vide interim order dated 28.10.2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the action of the recovery by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner. The same has been extended on the request of the petitioner to see that the unserved respondent Nos.2 to 8 (except respondent No.3 is served). Since no steps were taken, this Court had passed an order dated 25.06.2025 and directed the learned advocate Mr.Parikh appearing on behalf of the petitioner to give details of the unserved respondents. However, no details were tendered, and it was submitted that they have passed away long back before filing of the writ petition. Since, we had noticed the conduct of the petitioner in prolonging the matter, in order to see that the interim order against the recovery is stayed, the matter had taken up for final disposal since the unserved respondents were only the formal parties.
6. It appears that the petitioner filed an Appeal No.192 of 2014 under the provisions of Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act against the order dated 06.06.2006 in O.A. No.10 of 1997 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ahmedabad (“the DRT”). It is very interesting to note that since there was delay in filing the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay in the aforesaid appeal being M.A. No.561 of 2012 in Appeal No.192 of 2014. Vide order dated 21.08.2015, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, (“the DRAT” for short) allowed the aforesaid application of condonation of delay i.e. M.A. No.561 of 2012 by directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- towards to show his bona fide towards his debt in the form of Demand Draft with Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai. Accordingly, it appears that thereafter, the aforesaid amount was reduced by the DRAT, Mumbai to Rs.2,00,000/-,vide order dated 01.10.2015, which the petitioner deposited before the DRAT, Mumbai.
7. During pendency of the aforesaid Appeal No.192 of 2014, M.A. No.632 of 2012 for Waiver of Dep
