Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Bank of Baroda vs Orbit Developers and ors on 19 May 2025
*Exh-15*
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD**
**Present: Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay, Presiding Officer**
**APPEAL No.1 of 2025**
**IN**
**R. C. No.337 of 2021**
**Date of Order: 19/05/2025**
Bank of Baroda
..... Appellant
**Versus**
M/s. Orbit Developers
& Others
..... Respondents
**Present:** Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant None appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 & 7
Mr. Ritesh Patadia, Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5
Mr. V. N. Sevak, Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10
Mr. C.Z. Sankhla, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.11
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
1. 1. Before hearing of this Appeal on merits, Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 has made very serious allegations against purshis Exh.A/08 filed by the Appellant claiming therein that Respondent Nos.1 to 10 have been served either personally or by affixation of notice or by email, etc. Very lengthy objections have been filed by Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 at Exh.R/10 in which it is categorically denied that Respondent Nos.6 & 7 ever lived at the address on which the notice was served. Similar allegations have been made with regard to Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 also and it is claimed that service of notice was shown with false statement on behalf of the Appellant.
2. 2. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the notices were served on the above-mentioned Respondents on the addresses which were known to the Appellant and no other address was known to him.
1. 3. Allegations, though very serious in nature, but at this juncture it is not possible for this Tribunal to go into them and decide the truthfulness of the allegations and counter-allegations, neither this Tribunal thinks it proper to indulge into this unnecessary controversy. It is an admitted fact that Respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 are represented by Ld. Counsel Mr. Ritesh Patadia in Recovery Petition before Ld. R.O., while Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are not represented by anybody there also. So, even if the allegations of Ld. Counsel for the Respondents is correct, then also, the purpose of this Tribunal to serve notice on the necessary parties has been served as Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are already represented by Ld. Counsel Mr. Ritesh Patadia in this case and as far as Respondent Nos.6 & 7 are concerned, he represents them before Ld. R.O. Since Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are not represented by anybody before Ld. R.O. also, I think that not serving them will not cause any harm in this Appeal, whereas with regard to Respondent Nos.8, 9, 10 & 11, there is no controversy and they are represented by Ld. Counsel Mr. V.N. Sevak and Ld. Counsel Mr. C.Z. Sankhla respectively.
2. 4. After dealing with this complex issue of service of notice, now this Tribunal proceeds to decide the Appeal which, in the opinion of this Tribunal, is not a very serious thing. This Appeal has been filed with two prayers i.e. first to quash and set aside order dated 21/04/2025 passed by Ld. R.O. in R.C. No.337/2021 and relief (b) & (c) of this Appeal relate to a direction by this Tribunal to Ld. R.O. to dispose of objections filed through IA No.56/2025 & 57/2025 and to decide the fate of the auction held on 21/02/2025 within seven days without any further delay.
3. 5. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he is not pursuing relief (a) with regard to quashing the order dated 21/04/2025.
4. 6. As far as giving direction to Ld. R.O. to decide the objections, as raised by the Respondents and also the fate of the auction within a specified time-limit is concerned, Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 in R.C. and Respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10 have vehemently objected that they have ever sought any adjournment before Ld. R.O.
5. 7. Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 has also submitted that this Appeal is nothing else, but tactics to put pressure on Ld. R.O. through any direction from this Tribunal. In this regard, he has cited the judgment passed in **High Court Bar Association, Allahabad V/s. State of U.P. and Ors., MANU/SC/0149/2024**, in para 32 & 33 of this ruling, the Hon'ble Apex Court has advised the superior Courts to desist themselves from giving any time-bound direction to the subordinate Courts on the grounds that the Courts are overburdened and they have their own diary to follow.
1. 8. I have heard Ld. Counsels and gone through the records. In my considered view, there appears no ground to observe that Ld. R.O. is not trying to dispose of the matter pending before her as expeditiously as possible. As far as Ld. Counsel for the Respondents are concerned, they have also shown their willingness to cooperate the Court of Ld. R.O. in disposal of this matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in mind, this Tribunal does not find it fit to direct Ld. R.O. to decide the matter pending before her in a time-bound manner, but it will be sufficient to expect from her that this matter will be decided as expeditiously as possible.
2. 9. With these observations, this Appeal is hereby disposed of, without entering into merits.
3. 10. Let the records, with the copy of this order, be sent to Ld. R.O.
**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**
\*ykb