Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 780 (ALL)

Shubham Varshnay v. Canara Bank Application

2016-03-02

V.K.MATHUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Mathur, Chairperson. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow has sent a letter dated 24th February, 2016 requesting that the securitization application No. 717/2015-Shubham Varshnay v. Canara Bank may be withdrawn from the DRT, Lucknow and transferred to some other Debts Recovery Tribunal for disposal. It has been mentioned in the letter that Shri S.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Bank on 24th February, 2016 had stated before the Tribunal that the learned Counsel for the Applicant Shri Sanjeev Singh is taking privilege from the Tribunal and his cases are listed before the Tribunal as and when he desires. It was mentioned by the learned Presiding Officer that the said allegation causes aspersion on the working of the Tribunal. 2. The Applicant thereafter approached the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26th February, 2016 in Miscellaneous Single No. 4209 of 2016 - Shubham Varshnay v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow through its Registrar directed this Tribunal to take a decision expeditiously on the letter which was sent by the Presiding Officer, DRT in terms of the order dated 24th February', 2016. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that as per order dated 5th January, 2016 of the Registrar, DRT, Lucknow, the S. A. No. 717/2015 - Shubham Varshnay v. Canara Bank was directed to be listed on 3rd February 2016 for filing of objection. An application was moved on behalf of the Applicant by the learned Counsel Shri Sanjeev Singh mentioning that the auction in the matter was fixed for 29th February, 2016. The said application was directed by the Registrar to be listed before the Presiding Officer on 24th February, 2016. 4. The case was taken up on 24th February, 2016, wherein the learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the Respondent-Bank also appeared and on account of the unpleasant incident which occurred on 24th February, 2016, the Presiding Officer wrote a letter to this Tribunal for transferring the above case to some other DRT. 5. The Hon’ble High Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench has also directed this Tribunal to take the decision expeditiously on the letter sent by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow. 6. 5. The Hon’ble High Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench has also directed this Tribunal to take the decision expeditiously on the letter sent by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow. 6. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the learned Counsel for the Bank had stated that Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel for the Applicant is taking privilege from the DRT and his cases are listed as and when he desires and no affidavit or any other evidence has been submitted in this regard. 7. It was further submitted that in such circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Bank cannot take advantage and because of such baseless allegation against the Presiding Officer, the case should not be transferred to some other DRT and prayed that the request of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow be rejected. 8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad Anil Kumar Verma v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2014 (8) A.D.J. 152 . 9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Bank Shri Maneesh Mehrotra has not argued on the allegation made by Shri S.K. Sinha, who was appearing on behalf of the Bank before the learned DRT below. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Bank that in view of the reasons stated by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow, the case be transferred to some other DRT within the jurisdiction of this Appellate Tribunal. 10. Heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Lucknow has mentioned in the letter dated 24th February, 2016 that Shri S.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Bank had stated that Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel for the Applicant is taking privilege from the DRT and his cases are listed before the Tribunal as and he desires. This oral allegation has not been supported by an affidavit or any other relevant evidence. 12. The Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in the case of Anil Kumar Verma v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "21. An application was made before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice signed and presented by Shri Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate on behalf of Arun Kumar Mishra, Respondent No. 3 for transfer of the writ proceedings to another Bench. An application was made before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice signed and presented by Shri Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate on behalf of Arun Kumar Mishra, Respondent No. 3 for transfer of the writ proceedings to another Bench. This application came to be rejected by a detailed other dated 27th March, 2014 by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. It would be appropriate to reproduce the entire order passed on Application No. 111257 of 2014 filed by Shri Shanti Bhushan which is quoted herein-below : "3............The application is thoroughly improper and lacking in substance. Such uncalled for aspersions against the Bench must be deprecated." "12. These sentiments have been placed, in no uncertain terms in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jawant Singh v. Virender Singh thus : It is most unbefitting for an Advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable order " In a subsequent decision in Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, the Supreme Court while adverting to these observations held thus : "Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the Court or malign the Presiding Officer with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to "terrorize" or "intimidate" Judges with a view to "secure" orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilised system of administration of justice can permit it. We certainly, cannot approve of any attempt on the part of any litigant to go "forum-shopping". A litigant cannot be permitted "choice" of the "forum" and every attempt at "forum-shopping" must be crushed with a heavy hand." 13. In the present case, the allegation has been made against the Counsel for the Applicant which is not supported by any affidavit or any evidence, therefore, the said allegation is improper, uncalled for and cannot be a valid ground to transfer the case from DRT, Lucknow to another DRT. 14. In the present case, the allegation has been made against the Counsel for the Applicant which is not supported by any affidavit or any evidence, therefore, the said allegation is improper, uncalled for and cannot be a valid ground to transfer the case from DRT, Lucknow to another DRT. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case as enumerated above and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Verma v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2014 (8) A.D.J. 152 (All), I do not consider it just and proper to transfer the Securitization Application No. 717 of 2015-Shubham Varshnay v. Canara Bank from DRT, Lucknow to any other DRT. The prayer of the learned Presiding Officer in his letter dated 24th February, 2016 is hereby rejected. 15. The learned DRT, Lucknow is directed to hear the case on 7th March, 2016 as already fixed in the matter and decide the case expeditiously as directed by the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.