TOPLINE SHOES LIMITED Vs. CORPORATION BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Panesar waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos 1 & 2. With the consent of the parties matter is taken for final hearing.

(2.) The present petition arises against the order, dated 18.6.03 passed by the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Authority") below application in Misc.Appeal No.218/03 whereby the prayer for interim stay has been rejected and the matter is posted for hearing on 14.8.03.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner through the petitioner No.2 who appears as party in person and his counterclaim application is pending and not only that but in the said counterclaim application the petitioner-company is permitted to sue as an indigent person and after such permission was granted the order is stayed for some time against which the appeal is preferred being Misc.Appeal No.215/03 by the respondent-Bank and the hearing of the said appeal is fixed on 14.8.03. Therefore, it has been submitted that if in the meantime the original applications are posted for proceeding with the main application before the tribunal there will not be simultaneous hearing of counterclaim. He relied on the earlier order of the tribunal dated 15.10.01 in Appeal No.184/01 whereby as per the contention of the petitioner the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad is directed to decide the original application and the counterclaim of the appellant therein who is petitioner herein together. It has also been submitted that the application for extension of time was moved by the petitioner-company, but the same is also not considered. It has also been submitted that the question of deficit stamp duty in the document ought to have been decided by the tribunal first before hearing of OA finally. Under the circumstances, the present petition.