M/S Akriti Marble And Handicafts v. The State Bank Of India And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9507 of 2012 ===========================================================
1. M/S Akriti Marble and Handicafts At Ghughari Tar, Bodh Gaya , P.S.-Bodh Gaya, District Gaya through its proprietor Rama Nand Yadav, S/o Sri Ganga Yadav , Resident of village- Manpur, P.O.-Chandchaura, P.S.-Civil Line, District - Gaya
2. Ramanand Yadav S/O Sri Ganga Yadav R/O Village - Manpur, P.O.-Chand Chaura, P.S.-Civil Line, Gaya, District -Gaya .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Bank of India through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Purani Godown Branch Office, Gaya, District -Gaya .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-05-2016 This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal') in Original Application Case No. 218 of 2011 filed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder order dated 20.03.2012 under the Tribunal has allowed the case and directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 24,60,517/- (Rupees twenty four lacs sixty thousand five hundred seventeen) with interest @ 12.75% P.A. till its realization and also Rs. 84,500/- as a litigation cost.
2. At the very outset, this Court takes note that the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.9507 of 2012 dt.13-05-2016 2/2 impugned herein is amenable to the statutory appeal in terms of Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 2000.
3. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to seek remedy by filing statutory appeal against the impugned order.
4. It is made clear that in case such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority would have regard to the present proceeding being pursued by the petitioners while considering any issue relating to condonation of delay, if applicable.
(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date N/A