Syndicate Bank vs Ssp Tradex (P) Ltd. And Ors

P.K. Bhasin, J

This application of appellant is an abuse of process of Court inasmuch as during the pendency of Bank's appeal this Tribunal had passed an order on 4.1.2017 directing the appellant Bank to deposit the amount in dispute with the Registrar of this Tribunal. The DRT had directed the Bank to return to the purchaser of the mortgaged property by way of a private treaty because of his failure to make the full sale amount. This condition was imposed upon the appellant Bank by this Tribunal while staying the operation of the impugned direction of the DRT. The appellant Bank challenged that order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by filing writ petition but with no success. Thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition also before the Hon'ble High Court for review of order dated 13.1.2017. That review petition also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 15.2.2017. Thereafter, this Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal because of noncompliance of the aforesaid direction given by this Tribunal to the appellant Bank on 4.1.2017, vide order dated 20.2.2017. Against that order also the appellant filed a fresh writ petition being WPC No. 237/2017. Same also came to be rejected by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.3.2017 with cost of Rupees twenty thousand only.

While dismissing that writ petition the Hon'ble High Court had observed that with "Non-compliance of an order, challenge to which has failed, has entailed the consequences of dismissal of the appeal". It was further observed by the Hon'ble High Court that if the appellant Bank was aggrieved by the dismissal of its earlier order dated 13.1.2017 the remedy was to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Instead of approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant Bank has approached this Tribunal with an application that now it is ready to comply with the direction of this Tribunal given on 4.1.2017 for depositing the amount of rupees two crores with the Registrar of this Tribunal and today a Bank draft for that much amount has also been brought.

Learned the Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that now the Bank has realised its mistake that it ought to have complied with this Tribunal's direction it has approached this Tribunal after losing before the Hon'ble High Court twice, along with the Bank draft seeking permission of this Tribunal to accept that deposit now. In my view, after having lost before the Hon'ble High Court, as noticed above, this attempt now being made by the appellant before this Tribunal is clearly an attempt to avoid the consequences of the dismissal of its two writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court and this kind of an attempt is highly misconceived action which cannot, but to be deprecated and condemned strongly. This application is, therefore, rejected with cost of Rupees fifty thousand, which shall be paid to the Daily High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.