Gaurav Mamik v. Canara Bank
!" #$%$!&'
((( )' *+) ,
, + *+), ,+
- % & '
!"# $
((((
, +./ - % $ & #' $$ "$$ () ** "
(*+, - +,.(/$ 0 1
' *2 *3 (*(+$$ (4 (5 6+2 () 7 & $ & $ 8!911 # # *) *2 (*(3+, *2 (*(3 ' '
' '&"
9&
! 9& $ +5 *2 (*(3 # $ ++ *6 (*(3 $ 1 # # +5 *2 (*(3 7 $ & $ &" & $ #$ '$$ #$8!911 7 & "& 8!911 $ #
(
1 - + " #
,
& $$ - +9&
# $ " $ 1 ' 8
:
; < "$ ' &
$ $ #;$$ $8!911 $ # # $ #;$$ $8!911 # ;$$ $ 8!91 # & $
$ &
"&
"
)
! $ & $ 8!911 9$ # & #
$ #
It is settled law that the petitioner or a litigant cannot be left remediless especially when the same has been provided by a Statute. We also draw our support from the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2021 in the case of 'State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India' Special Leave Petition (C) No.10911/2021. Relevant extract is reproduced herein-below:- "13. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stopgap arrangement, we request the concerned High Court(s) to entertain the matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, till further orders. 14.
We make it clear that once the Tribunal(s) is/are constituted, the matters can be relegated to the Tribunals by the High Court(s)."
8.
As DRT-II is stated to be non-functional, it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is protected for some time till the DRT-II resumes its functioning. = > "
> "
9.
Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the sale shall not be confirmed for a period of 15 days after the DRT-II resumes its functioning. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not make any effort to delay the proceedings and shall cure the defects in the application, if any, immediately.
10.
Needless to observe that we are not making any expression on the merits of the case which would be adjudicated by the DRT in accordance with law.
/
, +1 /+ 1
= #? @ ?- = & @ ?-