BAKRAN BEEDI WORKS Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 23.12.2010 passed in S.A. No. 163 of 2010, declaring the same as bad in law and un-enforceable and direct the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh trial with due consideration of all the issues raised by the petitioner in the above appeal, along with O.A. No. 35 of 2003 and the set off claim of the petitioner pending with the 2nd respondent-Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner filed a review petition before the Tribunal, vide Review Application No. 1 of 2011, to review the order dated 23.12.2010 in S.A. No. 163 of 2010, which is still pending before the 2nd respondent-Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, we only direct the Tribunal to dispose of the said review petition filed in the Second Appeal, which is pending before it, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

(2.) We further make it clear that in the above review petition, though the petitioner was directed by the Tribunal, by its order dated 21.01.2011 in I.A. No. 44 of 2011, to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.00 crore with the Respondent-Bank, subsequently the said order is stayed by this court in WPMP No. 2858 of 2011, dated 08-02-2011, with a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order. In fact, it is stated that the petitioner has already deposited the said amount of Rs. 50.00 lakhs with the Respondent-Bank. In view of that, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.00 crore shall stand modified to the extent of Rs. 50.00 lakhs only, and since the petitioner has already complied with the said order, we feel that the petitioner must be given an opportunity of hearing before the Tribunal.

(3.) Therefore, we direct that the Tribunal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall dispose of the matter within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, and the petitioner is at liberty to place all the material before the Tribunal. We further make it clear that the auction conducted or to be conducted is subject to the result/outcome of the review application as well as the Second Appeal, pending before the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.