POONAM JEWELLERS Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunil Bhavsar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Harsh V. Mehtavia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank.

(2.) Mr.Sunil Bhavsar, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court, as the Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Ahmedabad is not available and the charge of DRT-I given to the Presiding Officer of DRT-II has not been extended after 31/3/2022.

(3.) Mr.Harsh V. Mehtavia, learned advocate for the respondent Bank submitted that in view of the peculiar situation which has arisen due to non- handing over of the charge of the DRT-I to the Presiding Officer of the DRT-II w.e.f. 1/4/2022, under instructions from the responsible officer of the Bank, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent-Company against the petitioners till either the charge of DRT-I is handed over to the Presiding Officer to the DRT-II or the Presiding Officer of the DRT-I takes the charge. It is further submitted that the respondent-Bank shall also issue notice of 15 days to the petitioners before taking any action.