1 mss OSWP+305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2011 SBI COMMERCIAL & INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD. & ORS. .. PETITIONERS Vs. UNITED DIAGNOSTICS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Chetan Kapadia i/b India Law for the petitioners Ms. Priya Ranade i/b Kaikini Phadke & Associates for respondents CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RAJESH G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 15/3/2011 P.C.: Admittedly the petitioners have filed an appeal in the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) which is pending. The only prayer made by the petitioners is that a direction be given to the DRAT that the appeal may be heard and disposed of within a time frame. It is not possible for us to issue such a direction as we do not have any data before us to indicate how many matters are pending before the DRAT. 2 mss OSWP+305 2. However, our attention is drawn by the counsel for the petitioners to the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated 31/1/11 which says that if the order passed by the Recovery Officer is not complied with a direction will be issued to the nearest police station of the Branch of applicant bank to procure the officer concerned before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has drawn our attention to the affidavit of Mr. Rohinton Elavia, Deputy Manager of the applicant bank in which he has stated as under: “Without prejudice the aforesaid, the Applicants submit that the Learned Recovery Officer has no jurisdiction to issue Show Cause Notice and/or initiate Contempt proceedings against the applicants. The Ld. Recovery officer is not a court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and hence, the Show Cause Notice issued by the Recovery Officer is bad in law and not maintainable.” Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of this approach of the petitioners, the Recovery Officer has passed the above order. 3 mss OSWP+305 3. We do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. We, however, feel that, in the circumstances of the case, if any application is made for expeditious hearing of the appeal, the said application may be sympathetically considered by the DRAT. 4. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.)