AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, J.C. to Mr. Rajesh Kumar on behalf of the Bank.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was preferred within time as was allowed by the Court on its extension. However, the appellate Tribunal is not functioning which is likely to function from 7th March. 2002.
In the meantime, in R.P. Case No. 103 of 2000, the Recovery Officer has taken steps for attachment of petitioner''s property. Prayer has, therefore, been made to grant interim relief till the Appellate Tribunal takes up the matter.
Mr. Bharati opposed the prayer and submitted that the appeal would have been preferred in time, the original order passed by the Court on 16th October, 2001, but it was filed some time in the mid of December, 2001 along with a limitation petition. The Court merely allowed 30 (thirty) days'' time protecting the interest of petitioner.
As from the record, it appears that C.W.J.C. No. 651 of 2001 has already been disposed of on 16th October, 2001 by way of C.M.P., it is not desirable to pass any specific order in such disposed of case.
However, the petitioner is given liberty to bring to the notice of the Recovery Officer/Bank ip R.P. Case No. 103 of 2000 bringing to his notice that the petitioner has deposited the 70% of the requisite amount and the Appellate Tribunal is likely to function from 7th March. 2002.
The C.M.P. application stands disposed of.