Gurbachan Singh And Ors. vs State Bank Of India And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

During the pendency of the S.A., the appellants have filed various applications making different prayers. I.A. 62/2014 is noticed to have been allowed on 27.1.2014. The prayer in the I.A. 63/2014 was for placing on record certain documents, which was allowed. Yet another I.A. (No. 677/2014) was for placing on record some more documents, which was also allowed to the extent of placing on record the documents. There was statedly some other prayer for interim relief, which is dismissed by the Tribunal below by stating "The other prayer for interim relief is dismissed". I.A. 730/2014 was for placing on record sale notice and stay of further proceedings. The Tribunal took the document on record, but declined the second prayer for staying the further proceedings and has held that "The second prayer of stay of proceedings is dismissed".

Yet another I.A. (No. 677/2014) was for stay and notice on this I.A. was issued. The Counsel for the Bank appeared and sought time to file response. This I.A. has been adjourned for consideration to 20.4.2015.

Primarily aggrieved against the order declining the stay and fixing the I.A. for hearing on 20.4.2015 in the background that auction of the property is scheduled to be held on 8.4.2015, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

The contention of the Counsel for the appellants is that out of the notice amount of Rs. 57,67,461/- the appellants have paid a sum of Rs. 24,50,000/- which is 42.41% of the notice amount. The Counsel further states that he has raised a dispute in regard to the amount due which, according to him, was only Rs. 31 lac. It is in this background, the Counsel would plead that the auction fixed for tomorrow may be stayed.

The prayer for stay is pending consideration before the Tribunal below. It may not appropriate to consider this prayer by this Tribunal only on the ground that part of the notice amount has already been paid by the appellants. This prayer still can be considered if the appellant is willing to show his bona fide by depositing a substantial amount say Rs. 20 lac more for stalling further action for sale of the property. The Counsel says that he is not in a position to make any statement in this regard.

I have otherwise considered the prayer made by the Counsel for stay of auction. The Tribunal has declined the prayer for stay without giving any reason. The Tribunal has also not properly taken note of the facts and even has not taken note of the documents which have been permitted to be placed on record. The Courts and the Tribunals can be expected to notice the facts and the pleas of the Counsel while allowing or declining any prayer. It is expected from the Tribunal to give reasons in case any prayer is to be declined. I find that the Tribunal below has simply recorded the order without taking note of the submissions made before it and without recording the reasons which weighed with the Tribunal to decline the prayer. This aspect of relating to necessity of recording reasons was emphasized by the Tribunal in an earlier appeal filed against the order passed by the same Tribunal. The observations made in this regard by this Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61/2015--M/s. Public Service Station & Ors. v. UCO Bank, vide order dated 17.3.2015 may call for reiteration here:

"Before resting the appeal, one aspect may call for notice. One of the grievances by the Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. There is a substance in this submission so advanced. The Tribunal below has not even taken note of any fact or the background in which this prayer was made in the MA for recall of the ex parte order It can be expected from any Court or Tribunal to assign reasons in any order which is passed. Recording of reasons for the passing of an order is not only desirable, but also necessary as it imparts clarity and reduces the chances of arbitrariness in the passing of Order. Reasons enables the higher forums while considering the appeals, etc. to find out whether the decision was arrived at justly and fairly and after due consideration of all facts bearing on the matter, uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration. A party is entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has passed the adverse order against him. Generally speaking, Courts insist on giving reasons so that the party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstrate before proper forum that the reasons on which the order is based are erroneous. Recording of reasons also operates as check against possible arbitrary action.

Ordinarily, the impugned order would have called for interference on this ground alone, but I am not doing so as 1 have permitted the appellants to raise all the grounds now before me and have considered all such pleas raised by the appellants. The Counsel for the appellant has now been heard. Because of this, no interference in the impugned order on this count is called for. The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine.

I find that the Tribunal below still has not taken proper note of the legal position to assign reasons in any order passed. Accordingly, I would deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the Tribunal below to reconsider the prayer of the appellants for stay of further proceedings by passing a speaking order. Since the case is only being remanded back to the Tribunal it is not considered essential to call upon the respondents to respond. The parties may appear before the Tribunal on 15.4.2015 and the Counsel for the appellant would sent advance notice to the Counsel of the Bank for this purpose. Otherwise the Tribunal below will take appropriate steps to serve the Counsel for the Bank while reconsidering the prayer for stay.

The waiver application filed by the appellant shall stand disposed of with observation that the appellant has already deposited approximately 41% of the notice amount and so it need not make any further deposit.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of.