Canara Bank vs Spl Electrotech Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

Heard parties' Counsel on application filed for transfer of O.A. No. 146/2008 pending before the DRT-I, Chandigarh to any other DRT. Mr. Saluja submits that the Bank had filed an appeal before this Tribunal and after filing the appeal it had filed an application before the Tribunal below seeking adjournment of the O.A. until the appeal is disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal, but the Tribunal below keeping that application pending, proceeded with the O.A. wherein a counter claim was also made by the defendant and in order to hasten the disposal of the counter claim it had started giving shorter dates. He further submits that two more applications with the same prayers were moved by the Bank for staying the proceeding of the O.A. but the Tribunal below declined the request and in view of this, the Bank apprehends that it will not get justice from the Presiding Officer of the DRT concerned.

Mr. Arora, opposing the application, submits that the O.A. was filed in 2008 wherein a counter claim was separately made by the defendant and the required fee was paid, but the Bank sought the withdrawal of the O.A. which was declined by the Tribunal below on the ground that a counter claim had been set up whereupon fee of Rs. 1.5 lacs had been paid. He further submits that thereafter the Bank filed written statement to the counter claim on 3.12.2011 and the matter proceeded for the production of the evidence and exhibition of documents in which almost nine months were consumed. Mr. Arora also submits that the Bank thereafter filed an appeal challenging the order dated 27.7.2011 with a delay of about 500 days before this Tribunal and the said matter is still pending for disposal of the application for condonation of delay. He contends that the Tribunal below had given sufficient opportunities to the Bank for production of evidence as well as for exhibition of documents and the matter was ultimately listed for final arguments. Mr. Arora further contends that adjournment applications were filed by the Bank for adjourning the matter sine die, i.e., until the disposal of the appeal, which has not been entertained as yet. He also contends that the Bank appears to have realised that it has no case and the counter-claim would be decreed, that is why they are trying to get the matter transferred whereas the Presiding Officer of the DRT concerned had conducted the proceedings in a most just and lawful manner. Mr. Arora also points out to certain orders passed by the Tribunal below in the concerned O.A. in support of his contentions. Considering the parties' submissions and keeping in view the circumstances pointed out by them, the grounds on which the transfer has been sought do not appear to be sufficient. However, since the applicant Bank apprehends that it may not get justice from the DRT concerned and it is said that 'justice not only be done but it also appears to have been done', the application is allowed in the interest of justice. The matter (O.A. No. 146/2008) is accordingly transferred from DRT-I, Chandigarh to DRT-II, Chandigarh for disposal in accordance with law. As it has been pointed out that the matter has already been heard, the DRT-II, Chandigarh is directed to dispose of the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously, if possible, within two months from the date the matter is put up before it. Parties to appear before DRT-II, Chandigarh on 6.5.2013.

Let a copy of this order be furnished to the parties and be also sent to the DRT concerned.