AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Brijesh Sethi, Chairperson
Vide this order, I shall dispose of two appeals filed by the appellants against orders dated 02.06.2022 passed by the learned DRTII, Delhi in S.A.81/2022and S.A. No.82/2022 while considering the I.A. No.958/2022 and I.A No.959/2022 respectively vide which the auction proceedings initiated by the appellants were stayed by the learned DRT till the passing of the orders i.e. till 11.07.2022.
The appellants in the present appeals have filed two applications (I.A. No.343/2022 and I.A. No.344/2022 respectively) for early hearing along with copies of the orders dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in VV.P(C) No.9600/2022 and W.P(C) No.9599/2022, directing this Tribunal to decide these appeals within three weeks of resuming office after summer vacations. Accordingly this Tribunal took up the matters on 05.07.2022 and heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order dated 02.06.2022passed by the learned DRT is a non-speaking order and the auction proceedings have been stayed without giving any reasons.
The impugned order dated 02.06.2022 runs as under:-
“Matter is taken through VC Argument heard.
Matter be listed on 11.07.2022 for clarification, if any/order the date already fixed. In the meantime auction proceedings is hereby stayed."
In the Misc. Appeal No.120/2022, the appellants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
a. Pass an order for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, (DRT) Delhi in I.A. No.958 of 2002 in S.A.. No.81 of 2022 titled as 'BNR Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GEM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. &Ors.;
b. Pass/make any other relief(s) order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Appellant herein"
Similar prayers have been made in the Misc. Appeal No.121/2022 also.
The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned DRT without applying its mind to the submissions made on behalf of the parties has stayed the auction proceedings in a mechanical manner and without giving any reasons. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order, which is a non-speaking one, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
In this regard, the learned Sr. Counsel for appellants has also relied upon the following judgments: -
1 State of Uttarakhand&Anr. Vs. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 SCC On Line SC 469;
2 Vishal Ashwin Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3)& Ors., 2022 SCC On Line SC 366;
State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Chandra Nandi, (2019) 4 SCC 357;
P. Seshadri Vs. S. MangatiGopal Reddy & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 484;
Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 772;
Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.; (2010) 9 SCC 496; and
7 Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311)
The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the learned DRT has not yet passed the order and has simply kept the matters for clarification / order for 11.07.2022 and has stayed the auction of the premises in question till the pronouncement of the order only, and it would, therefore, be premature to say that the order is a non-speaking one The learned counsels have, therefore, contended that no relief as prayed for by the appellants can be granted.
I have given my thoughts to the rival submissions. As narrated above, the learned P.O., DRT on 02.06.2022 has passed the following order:-
"Matter is taken through VC. Arguments heard.
Matter be listed on 11.07.2022 for clarification, if any/order the date already fixed. In the meantime, auction proceedings is hereby stayed."
A perusal of the above order reveals that the learned Presiding Officer has heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and has kept the matter for clarification, if any orfor pronouncement of the order on 11.07.2022 and has stayed the auction proceeding still then only. Thus, it is clear that the learned P.O.has yet to pass a detailed and reasoned order and this Tribunal hopes and trusts that the learned Presiding Officer would pass a reasoned order, discussing and analysing all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Thus, the interim order passed by the learned P.O. is till 11.07.2022 and no one can predict whether learned P.O. will finally stay the Auction Proceedings or not vide its order reserved for 11.07.2022.
This Tribunal has also gone through the authorities relied upon by the learned Sr. counsel for the appellants. Perusal of these authorities reveals that in all these cases matter was disposed of by the Hon'ble Courts by passing cryptic orders and the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasheld that reasons are required to be given by the Tribunals/courts so that the appellate court can at least know whether the court below has applied its mind. Since in the present matter the learned P.O. has yet to pass an order and, therefore, the authorities cited by learned Sr. Counsels are clearly distinguishable.
In view of the above discussion and keeping in mind the fact that the order is yet to be passed by the learned DRT, no grounds are made out to set aside the impugned orders dated 02.06.2022 passed in I.A. 958/2022 filed in S.A. No.81/2022 and I.A. No 959/2022 filed in S.A. No.82/2022. The present appeals are, therefore, dismissed being premature. Of course, it goes without saying that if the appellants feel aggrieved bythe order to be passed by the learned P.O., they are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.
The date of 12.09.2022 earlier fixed in these appeals stands cancelled.
Files be consigned to record room.