M.A. Nos. 250 to 253 of 2015. Case: Allahabad Bank and Ors. Vs Kapoor Exports Inc. and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberM.A. Nos. 250 to 253 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Malik and Pravan Malik, Advocates
JudgesRanjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
IssueBanking
Citation2016 (I) BC 41 (DRAT)
Judgement DateAugust 21, 2015
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)

  1. Enough energy seems, to have been spent to decide as to who is to represent the appellant Bank in the O.A. filed by it and pending before the Tribunal below. This incidental issue, at best, required to be ignored has led to another offshoot for which the Counsel and the Bank have come up with these Appeals. Avoidable exercise by the Tribunal has given rise to this uncalled for litigation resulting in wasting the time and efforts of two forums which could have been better utilized.

  2. Responsibility to represent and appear for a party before a Court or a Tribunal is primarily of the Counsel. Once a Counsel is authorized through a power of attorney, he can be permitted to appear. If more then one Counsel appears to represent a party, then it should be left to them to sort out the issue while recording their presence. A simple procedural issue which, in fact, is a non-issue has been so agitated by the Counsel in a manner which may not measure up to the expected professional standards.

  3. Initially, these four different O.As. were filed by the appellant Allahabad-Bank through Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate. Subsequently, appearance was effected by Mr. S.S. Malik, another Advocate. As can be seen from the different orders annexed on the file, the presence of both the Advocates used to be marked till this issue was asked up on 12th June, 2015. On this date, Mr. Vijay Sharma and Mr. Sandeep Verma, proxy for Mr. S.S. Malik, both came to represent the appellant Allahabad-Bank. The Tribunal below has noticed that both the Counsel have filed their Vakalatnamas. Tribunal has thereafter observed that it is not clear as to who is going to appear in the matter in future. Having so observed, the Tribunal directed the CMD of the Bank to inform the Court as to who the Counsel is and who is going to appear in future as both the Counsel had filed their respective Vakalatnamas. The copy of the order was sent to CMD. Was there any need to seek this confirmation? It was better to leave the issue of appearance to the Counsel to sort out amongst themselves instead of getting involved in it.

  4. Be that as it may, on 15th July, 2015, an affidavit of Zonal Manager was found placed on record, confirming that Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate was to appear in the matter. The Tribunal has noticed this fact in the opening part of the order passed on 15th July, 2015. That would have been enough to close the controversy, but it has not been so. The Tribunal thereafter has gone on to make reference to the order dated 12th June, 2015 for which really there was no need. Once the affidavit had come on record, that should have closed the issue. The Tribunal even has made some observation in regard to this affidavit and has then asked the CMD to file better affidavit.

  5. Was this really needed? The apparent answer would be that there was no need for the Tribunal to do so. The primary aim of the Tribunal was to decide the O.A. and such offshoots ought to have been avoided. No purpose ultimately is going to be achieved.

  6. In this Appeal, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit that was filed by the DGM-cum-Zonal Head of Allahabad Bank posted at Chandigarh. The perusal of this affidavit would show that the same was filed on being authorized by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank. The deponent of this affidavit has clearly disclosed that Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, was engaged earlier to represent the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT