AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The Appellant has come up with an appeal impugning the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.) dated 18.07.2023 wherein considering the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 09/2023 filed by the Respondents herein u/s 19 (25) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB Act”, for short), the Ld. Presiding Officer directed the applicants in the M.A. to deposit a sum of ₹1 crore in two tranches and it was also ordered that the recovery proceeding may not be precipitated till 17.11.2023 when the matter was posted for hearing. The Appellant is aggrieved by this order stating that the stay is running against them and prevents them from proceeding with the recovery.
A reading of the impugned order does not indicate that there is any stay in place and that the matter was posted for hearing on 17.11.2023 and the recovery proceedings were directed not to be precipitated till then. Hence, there is no stay beyond 17.11.2023.
A reading of the M.A. filed by the Respondents would indicate that it is an application for setting aside ex-parte order and judgment passed by the D.R.T. in O.A. No. 161/2021. The M.A. seeks restoration of that O.A. and to allow the applicants therein to file their written statements and permit them to adduce evidence in support of their pleadings. In effect, this is an application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and order in the O.A., even though it has not been spelt in so many words in the application.
The pending hearing of the M.A., the operation of the judgment dated 19.04.2022 in the aforesaid O.A. has been requested to be stayed. It is on that prayer that the Ld. Presiding Officer had granted an order stating that the recovery proceeding shall not precipitate till 17.11.2023.
Without allowing the application for restoration of the O.A. after setting aside the ex-parte order, it is not possible for the Ld. Presiding Officer to have granted any interlocutory relief to the applicants in the M.A. prohibiting the operation of the order in the O.A. However, there is no further stay granted by the Ld. Presiding Officer for the appellant to be aggrieved about.
Hence, this appeal has become infructuous and therefore, this appeal is disposed of with the direction to the Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T. to consider M.A. No. 09/2023 on its merits and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.