TOPLINE SHOES LIMITED Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal challenges the judgment dtd. 7/7/2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay thereby dismissing the Writ Petition Nos.207 and 1490 of 2005, filed by the present appellants arising out of the concurrent orders passed by the learned Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 (for short "DRT") in O.A. No.948 of 2000 dtd. 31/10/2002 and the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai (for short "DRAT") in Appeal Nos.152 of 2002 and 43 of 2004 dtd. 24/11/2004.

(2.) The respondent-Bank had filed an O.A. No.948 of 2000 against the present appellants raising certain claims. In the said proceedings, the appellants filed a counter-claim claiming therein that certain amount deposited in the current account opened by them with the respondent-Bank, was illegally withheld by the respondent-Bank. The learned DRT vide order dtd. 31/10/2002 dismissed both, the claim of the bank as well as the counter-claim of the appellants. Being aggrieved thereby, both the respondentBank as well as the appellants had preferred appeals before the learned DRAT. Both the appeals were dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, two writ petitions were filed, one by the respondent-Bank and the other by the appellants. As far as the writ petition of the respondent-Bank is concerned, the same was disposed of as withdrawn since the respondentBank did not press the same. The writ petition of the appellants was, however, dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. S. N. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that both the DRT and the DRAT as well as the High Court have grossly erred in arriving at the conclusion that the claim of the present appellants was covered under Article 113 and not by Article 22 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the Limitation Act").