Santosh Vyavhare So Shridharrao Vyavhare vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK on 3 August 2021

1. At Diary No.300/2021, this Miscellaneous Application has been filed.

2. It should be noted by the Registry in the pending matter no Miscellaneous Application can be filed in which only Interlocutory Applications could be filed.

3. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant to submit that the matter should be re-heard as the Judgment was reserved on 26th March, 2021. This Application is nothing but another attempt by Applicant to delay the matter. The matter has been heard at length giving ample and sufficient opportunities to the parties.

4. As per the Order sheets of this Tribunal, the matter was fixed for 7th April, 2021 and from that the date was fixed on 3rd May, 2021 for pronouncement of the orders. The following orders were passed on 26.03.2021. The detailed arguments of Applicant were heard on last two

ORDER SHEET [SBJ] (MA Diary No.300/2021) Page 2 of 3

dates. Today halfway in the arguments of Bank, the counsel of Applicant started interfering saying he is not arguing correctly. He was advised not to interfere and just to derail the arguments of Bank he again did that and said he should be given first right to argue whereas he had refused to argue earlier and when Bank started arguing he interrupted at each point and he was given chance to argue and on his completion the Counsel for bank argued but today again he did the same thing.

5. During the course of arguments, he kept on arguing on CERSAI notification and on query from Bench that CERSAI came in 2016 and 26 D says it will be applicable only from date of notification but sale was done in 2013,

6. The advocates concluded the arguments and requested the matter be reserved for orders. The IAs of Auction purchaser will have to be decided along with the final orders as such matter be kept for Final orders/clarification, if any on those IAs. List the matter for Further proceeding on 7th April, 2021 through VC.

7. The counsel for the Applicant argued that the matter was reserved for orders on 26th March and he has Audio recording of court proceedings and he will see how the matter is not fixed for rehearing.

8. Mr Mishra who appears in this matter for Auction purchaser happens to be the President of DRT Advocates Bar Association, Aurangabad assured the Tribunal that he will look into this illegal recording of the Court proceedings and will take appropriate steps.

9. It is expected that the Bar will advice its member not do the

ORDER SHEET [SBJ] (MA Diary No.300/2021) Page 3 of 3

illegal recording of the court proceedings.

10. In the meantime, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank, complete lock down was imposed and as such the DRT was working only 25% of the staff. The Order XX, CPC pointed out by the learned counsel in his Miscellaneous Application thus contemplate the extraordinary circumstances under which the passing of orders is delayed.

11. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, Anil Rai vs State of Bihar of Hon’ble Supreme court also do not support him as it says that in three months if the Judgment is not passed the matter could be referred by moving an application which is not done earlier. However, as explained above, this Pandemic of Covid 2019 is very extraordinary circumstance, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.

12. File be consigned to record room. The parties may download the order from the official web-site which will be treated as a true copy as due to COVID 19 & staff constraints, the certified copies cannot be issued as of now till further orders.

(Vimal Gupta)

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad