Patna High CourtL.P.A/1024/2016dismissed

Syndicate Bank, Patna Main Branch And ORS v. New Dadiala Saw Mills And ANR

2017-06-23The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1024 of 2016 Arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 3153 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Syndicate Bank, Patna Main Branch, Frazer Road, Patna 800001 through the Regional Manager, Maurya Tower, Maurya Loak Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna

2. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Patna Main Branch, Frazer Road, Patna 800001

3. Authorized officer, Syndicate Bank, Patna Main Branch, Frazer Road, Patna 800001 .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. New Dadiala Saw Mills through its Proprietor Harbhajan Singh Son of Late Sardar Darshan Singh, Boring Canal Road, P.S. Budha Colony, Town and District Patna

2. The Presiding officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 23-06-2017 Delay of 25 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 1024 of 2016 stands allowed.

2. Seeking exception to an order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3153 of 2014, an order passed by the learned Writ Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent borrower and interfering with an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 166 of 2013 directing for

Patna High Court LPA No.1024 of 2016 dt.23-06-2017 2/2 payment of Court Fee by the borrower to the Bank in an Original Application filed by the Bank, this appeal has been filed.

3. The Learned Writ Court in the detailed order passed, has found that for the Original Application filed by the Bank challenging certain action in the matter of settlement of dispute, it was not necessary to direct for payment of Court Fee by the borrower and has interfered in the matter.

4. In doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court has not committed any error which warrants reconsideration. The appeal filed by the Bank being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 29.06.2017 Transmission Date