HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No.256 of 2023

Hotel Golden Tulip, a unit of M/S Surgio & Medico Centre

….....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab National Bank & another

….….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following relief:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature

of

mandamus,

commanding/

directing the Ld. Debts Recover Tribunal of

Uttarakhand

at

Dehradun

to

pass

an

appropriate order in accordance with law on

the application of the petitioner filed under

Section 340 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No.4 to this

writ petition) within the stipulated period

fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner

2

and learned counsel for respondent no. 1 appeared

through video conferencing.

3.

It appears that the respondent-Bank filed a

suit for recovery of money against the petitioner before

the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun (“the DRT”). The

petitioner had already filed a Caveat, which was in order.

The petitioner also filed a preliminary objections with a

request to dismiss the Original Application (“the OA”),

filed by the respondent-Bank. By the order dated

05.01.2023, the DRT observed that the objections are not

properly stamped. The DRT fixed 08.02.2023 for further

proceedings, while giving opportunity to the petitioner

and others to file objections. The order dated 05.01.2023

is as follows:-

“Called out, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and

Caveator present.

The Caveator has not filed caveat petition in

proper form.

The Defendant No. 1 has filed preliminary

objection vide Diary no. 66 dated 05.01.2023 and

prayer has been made to dismiss the above captioned

O.A. No. 607 of 2022 and for any other relief may deem

fit but no any court fees has been paid for relief. Every

person is liable to pay court fee, if he has come before

the Tribunal or Court for any relief or prayer. The

Defendant- Applicant is directed to pay proper fee, if he

wants to press objection as per prayer.

3

Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 has stated that

he shall file vakalatnama within a week on behalf of

Defendant No. 2 & 3 also.

As per Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No. 1, no

need to send summons to the Defendants No. 2 & 3.

The Defendants shall file written statement

within in a period of 15 days, after receiving written

statement Applicant Bank may file replication, if any,

within a period of 15 days.

The Defendants are restrained from transferring,

alienating,

selling

or

otherwise

dealing

with

or

disposing of any personal movable and immovable

properties belonging to them in any manner whatsoever

till furnishing security/disposal of this case without the

prior permission of this Tribunal.

Put up on 08.02.2023 for further proceedings.”

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner had filed an application under

Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the

Code”) because along with OA, some documents were

filed, which were not pertaining to the petitioner.

5.

It is argued that instead of deciding that

application under Section 340 of the Code, it was

observed that it was not sufficient stamped and the court

proceeded further while granting interim relief.

6.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would

file objections within three days from today and

participates in the proceedings before the DRT.

4

7.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

for respondent no.1-Bank would submit that the

petitioner has not come up with clean hands. He has

concealed many thing