OM PRAKASH GROVER Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case seems to be one of the old vintage cases. Proceedings in this case are in progress since the year 1993 and shockingly these have -not been finalized till date. We are now in the year 2014. Unfortunate aspect is that this case may have to go back again to the Tribunal for which the blame would not rest onto parties concerned.

(2.) THOUGH in this appeal an order dated 25.1.2011 passed by DRT -III, Delhi is impugned on a number of grounds, but what would straightaway strike is the delay in pronouncing the judgment after hearing arguments and after reserving the same for pronouncement. Since no other issue is being dealt with while disposing of this appeal, detailed mention to the facts may not be needed. Still, it would be appropriate to make a brief narration of facts so as to appreciate the issue of delayed delivery of judgment by the Tribunal below.

(3.) IT is alleged that respondent No. 3, Mr. H.S. Bakshi, the proprietor of M/s Cear Shoes dishonestly removed and disposed of entire stock of goods and machinery. Grievance is that the respondent Canara Bank failed to protect its hypothecated stock or to take any action against respondent No. 3 in any manner.