H. ACHUMI STEELS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2003 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati in Original Application (OA) No. 66/2000, affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2004 in Appeal No. 74/2003. The DRT having allowed the O.A. No. 66/2000 filed by the respondent Bank granting certificate to recover an amount of lis. 33,33,841/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the OA till the actual payment, the petitioners filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was registered and numbered as Appeal No. 74/2003. The said appeal having been dismissed by judgment and order dated 27.7.2004, they filed the instant writ petition on 15.10.2004 and by order dated 22.12.2004 the impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2003 was stayed. After entertaining the writ petition by the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2004 with the stay order, the matter was not listed till 30.1.2008 except once on 31.1.2005. On both the occasions, the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thereafter also on 14.7.2008, 22.7.2008 and 26.8.2008, the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. When it was found that steps for service of notice on the respondent No. 4 was not taken, direction was issued for taking steps vide order dated 3.9.2008. Thereafter also vide order dated 17.6.2009, the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the matter was again taken up on 22.6.2009, the Court had issued notice upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, although such notice was already issued on 22.12.2004, Thereafter, on 17.7.2009, the writ petition was admitted for hearing. When the matter was listed on 23.4.2012, 10.5.2012, 16.7.2012, 6.3.2013, 20.7.2013, 6.8.2013, 16.9.2013 and 7.11.2013, the matter was again adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Finally the matter was heard on 7.1.2014.

(2.) The above development of the case has been referred to only to highlight the cause of delay in disposal of the writ petition. In the process, a stay has been operating on the decretal amount, which the respondent Bank was favoured with vide the impugned judgment and order. I hasten to add that this delay in disposal of the writ petition has nothing to do with the rights and contentions of the parties involved in this proceeding.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal.