- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Bank Of India v. Kingfisher Airlines Limited
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners filed petitions seeking directions by way of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to hear and dispose of certain interlocutory applications (I.A Nos. 2593/2013 to 2598/2013 and I.A No. 3034/2013) filed by them in O.A No. 766/2013. The Debts Recovery Tribunal had not considered these applications on merits nor granted any ad-interim relief pending their consideration. Consequently, the petitioners approached this Court seeking interim protection and directions to ensure their rights were not defeated pending disposal of their applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal should be directed to hear and dispose of the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners expeditiously.
- Whether interim protection should be granted to the petitioners to protect their rights pending disposal of the applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the Debts Recovery Tribunal had not yet considered the interlocutory applications on their merits nor granted any interim relief. Recognizing that the petitioners' rights could be defeated if no interim protection was provided, the Court confirmed the ad-interim order previously passed on 03.09.2013. This order was to remain in effect until the Debts Recovery Tribunal considered and disposed of the applications. The Tribunal was given discretion to fix its own time frame for disposal, with the expectation that it would be done expeditiously. The Court further clarified that the specific directions sought in IA. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013 before this Court would not arise for consideration, and if grievances persisted, the petitioners could pursue appropriate applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which would consider them on merits and in accordance with law.
Holding and Implications
The petitions and the applications in IA. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013 are disposed of.
The Court’s order confirms the interim protection granted to the petitioners until the Debts Recovery Tribunal disposes of the interlocutory applications. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of these applications expeditiously, but the Court does not impose a specific timeline. No new precedent is established; the decision primarily ensures procedural fairness by safeguarding the petitioners' rights pending adjudication by the competent forum.
A.S Bopanna, J.:— Though these petitions are listed for considering applications in IA. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013, whereby the petitioners have sought for directions, the petitions are taken up for disposal.
2. Having heard the learned Senior counsel representing the parties, I have adverted to the prayers made in the instant petitions, which reads as hereunder:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal to hear and dispose of the Interlocutory Applications filed by the Petitioners in O.A No. 766/2013 i.e I.A No. 2593/2013 to 2598/2013 & I.A No. 3034/2013 expeditiously;
b. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. The averments made in the petitions in justification of the said prayers would refer to the situation where the petitioners have filed the applications as denoted in the prayer column before the Debts Recovery Tribunal wherein O.A No. 766/2013 filed by the petitioners is pending consideration. By the said application, the petitioners have sought for certain interim directions against respondents No. 1 to 3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal had neither considered the application on its merits nor had granted any ad-interim relief pending consideration of the application. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. This Court while directing notice to the respondents on 03.09.2013 on taking note of the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners had passed the ad-interim order in aid of the final consideration of the application which had been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was pending consideration. At this juncture, since in any event this Court is of the view that the said application would have to be considered and disposed of one way or the other in accordance with law by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, certainly if no ad-interim protection is granted to the petitioners, the right of the petitioners would be defeated. In that view, the interim order dated 03.09.2013 passed herein is confirmed to enure to the benefit of the petitioners till the applications denoted in the prayer column of the instant petitions are considered and disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal may fix its own time frame for disposal of the applications which shall be in a expeditious manner. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relating to directions sought in IA. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013 filed herein in such circumstance would not arise for consideration before this Court and if the grievance of the petitioners still survives to press the prayers in the said applications, it would be open for the petitioners to file such application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which would be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.
5. In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of. In view of disposal of the petitions, application in IA. Nos. 1 and 2/2013 also stands disposed of.
Alert