1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.136 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2168/2008. 1) Vinay G. Bathiya and Anr. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) Abhay Hatolkar, Chief Manager SBI, Parbhani & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.A.S.Deshmukh,Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.S.L.Kulkarni, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5th February, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel. 2) On 9.4.2009, this Court in Writ petition passed the following order : “The impugned order is set aside. The Debts Recovery Tribunal to consider the application of the petitioners for setting aside 2 exparte decree on its own merits by condoning the delay. The Respondent no.1 shall not attach the bond in any manner and shall pay the interest accrued on the same to the petitioners. The Debts Recovery Tribunal to determine whether the amount is shown in the bond may be released to the petitioners. Rule made absolute accordingly. CA disposed of.” 3) It is informed by Mr.Deshmukh, pursuant to this order, the D.R.T. has indeed acted upon, however according to Mr. Kulkarni, it is not so. Consequently, this aspect is left for discussion. 4) During the course of submission, it is informed that this order of learned Single Judge is taken in L.P.A. No.196/2009 and there operates an interim relief by order dated 19.11.2009 in favour of the Bank and hence Mr.Kulkarni submits, the order dated 9.4.2009 being itself a nullity, even if any breach thereof is committed, it will not attract any action in terms of its disobedience or non-performance. 5) During the course of submission, it is pointed that when a matter is required to be 3 decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in terms of Chapter XVII Rule 18 of High Court Appellate Side, Rules, the decision by a learned Single Judge, the judgment, would be a nullity as the matter being heard by a Court which had no competence to hear the same. It being a matter of totally lack of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed by Mr. Kulkarni to the Judgment in the matter of Pandurang Vs. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1987 SC 535, where the Apex Court had observed - “Even a right decision by a wrong forum is no decision. it is non existing in the eye of law and hence a nullity. 6) This Court, at this stage of the matter, need not to further dissect the order dated 9.4.2009 as this Court is not called upon to deal with the same, which is naturally to be addressed in LPA No.195/2009. 7) The short point now centers is, – Whether the directions referred herein above, having not complied with by the Bank in its letter and spirit will amount to contempt ? 8) Without commenting on the apathy shown by the bank though it is expected to be a harbinger of wellbeing of clients or account holders. The fact remains, there being a stay in 4 LPA No.195/2009, the request by the applicant – Vinay to the bank to release at least interest, indeed should have been considered favourably even if there was a chequered history of litigation since there operated order dated 9.4.2009. However, bank in its wisdom has not yet considered the same. It is left for the Bank to decide it on its consequences. 9) For the present, I do not see that there is any obliteration of order passed in Writ Petition No.2168/2008, more so, in the light of above stated facts. Consequently, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cp136-09