Appeal No. 82 of 2016. Case: Shailender Singh and Ors. Vs Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal No. 82 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Nimish Chib, Advocate |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Banking |
| Judgement Date | February 04, 2016 |
| Court | Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
-
Counsel representing the appellants in S.A. made a statement before the Tribunal below that the appellants were ready to vacate the property mentioned in the order and requested for 30 days' time to vacate the same. The S.A. was accordingly disposed of by restraining the Bank from taking physical possession of the property for 30 days. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application seeking review of this order. The Tribunal dismissed the application for review on 17.12.2015. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed in limine on 29.12.2015. The relevant observations made by this Tribunal are as under:
Submission by the Counsel for the appellants is that the Counsel appearing to represent the appellants had made this statement without proper instructions and had even made a statement in respect of the property which was not owned by the appellants. As per the Counsel, the roof rights of the second floor of the property in question are owned by Mr. Yogender Sharma, who had separately filed another S.A. be/ore the Tribunal below. The Counsel would refer to the order dated December 17, 2015 whereby the Tribunal below has granted protection to the said applicant Mr. Yogender Sharma so far as the statement for vacating roof rights of the second floor was concerned as this part of the property was not owned by the appellant. The Counsel says that injustice would result if the present order is allowed to stand. The Counsel has made an attempt to show me certain documents to indicate the title of the property in question. In my view, the application filed for seeking review of the order was not maintainable on the grounds pleaded. If the Counsel has made any statement without proper instructions conveyed to him, the proper course for the appellants was to move an application to withdraw the statement made by the Counsel and then seek adjudication on merits. The review has rightly been declined by the Tribunal below as there is no ground to seek review of the order once the Counsel for the appellant had made the statement for vacating the property. The plea that statement related to that part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial