AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N.H. Zaidi, J
Mr. Cherobin points out that he has filed his Vakalatnama with the Registry today. Mr. Chaudhary prays for condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder. The delay is condoned and the rejoinder is taken on record.
Heard parties' Counsel on the application filed for transfer of O.A. No. 779/2000 pending before the DRT-I, Chandigarh to some other DRT. The application has been moved on the ground that the Presiding Officer of the said DRT is biased against the applicants. In para 14(i) of the application, the applicants alleging bias against the Presiding Officer, have said that he is not above board and a fair judge.
Mr. Chaudhary points out that an S.A. in respect of the loan in question was also pending between the same parties before the said DRT and in that S.A. interim application filed by the applicants, was dismissed by the PO and on the date of pronouncement of the final order on that S.A. the Presiding Officer has mis-conducted the proceedings and after uttering the word 'allowed', immediately thereafter said that the S.A. stood dismissed and at that time there was neither the file of the S.A. nor the draft judgment before him.
Ms. Banerjee has denied these allegations and points out that in the O.A. the applicants have already filed and exhibited its evidence and the interim application has rightly been dismissed. Considering the parties submissions, I am of the view that the applicants have utterly failed in substantiating the allegation of bias against the Presiding Officer. However, since justice should not only be done, but it must also appears to have been done, therefore, without entering into the merit of the allegations, the said O.A. is transferred from DRT-I, Chandigarh to DRT-II Chandigarh for its disposal according to law. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Let copy of order be issued to the parties as per law and be also sent to the DRTs concerned.