High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 02 UK CK 0069

Mukesh Agarwal And Others vs Punjab National Bank Through Its Managing Director And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 15 February 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2736 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 338 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing.

2.

The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2021 and protection against coercive action was granted to the petitioners for a period of

four weeks or till appointment of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier.

3.

Today, the matter is listed on time extension application.

4.

In para no.6 of the affidavit filed in support of time extension application, it is stated that Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow was

given additional charge of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun only for 15 days till 31.12.2021 and petitioner’s counsel has referred to Annexure

No.2 to the time extension application, perusal whereof indicates that the Presiding Officer, Lucknow held Court of Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Dehradun on Friday only.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to aforesaid reason the Securitization Application No. 863 of 2021 filed by the petitioner in the

year 2021 is yet to be considered. He then prays that protection granted vide order dated 17.12.2021 be extended for four weeks from today.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank fairly submits that after 31.12.2021, the charge of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Dehradun has not been given to any person. He further submits that since no order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners has been passed,

therefore, there is no need of extension of protection granted to the petitioners vide order dated 17.12.2021.

7.

Perusal of the order dated 17.12.2021 reveals that this Court had granted protection to the petitioners due to non-availability of Presiding Officer in

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, but the situation remains the same, therefore, this Court thinks that the protection granted to the petitioner vide

order dated 17.12.2021 deserves to be extended.

8.

Accordingly, Time Extension Application (M.C.C. No 2 of 2022) is allowed. Protection granted to the petitioner from coercive action at the hands

of the respondent-Bank is extended up to 10.03.2022 or till appointment of Presiding Officer, whichever is earlier.