>2- IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS W.P:No.J7 7^/2001 / •\=^r M/s. Bindal Ispat Udyog, Through Prop:- Hiralal Saraf Industeial Area, Bhanpuri, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Hiralal Saraf, S/o. Shri Ranglal Saraf, aged about 82 yrs. 3. Ajay Kumar Saraf, S/o. Hiralal Saraf, aged about 30 yrs. 4. GirdharflalBindal S/o- Shri Hiralal Saraf aged about 32 yrs. 5. Smt. Tara Devi Agrawal aged about 75 yrs W/o-ShriHiralalSaraf, Respondent No.2 to 5, Resident of 217, Samta colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS 1.. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. Bank Oflndia, Rukhmani Bhawan, Behind Jairam Talkies Complex, Sharada Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRITJEEJITIQN U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GMDIA SS-S.&s-''•'•:'-'S!:sSS'!S.'SS^Sc HC-22 . ^"< ^.rraTi?pT,'6^ft'ITTre, ts^ra-y ^" . \^ ..u?.:P.... .;17..7.^/_ +<1 ^" ->.- W?'!'^ ^IWaTI^ ^nWQf^ •a— 1-- a^ 6^'iw Trft?' i =l'.i<ii"i *'"!•< TTlRTf ^ feCTt '<fSTCT!: A'i.rs' 27.11.2001 Heard Shri Kishore Bhaduri, ^dvocgte fer the petitioner. s Heard nlso Shri P.S.Naiij, Senior Advocate with Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for-the respoijident No.2. Consequent to the order / judgementpassed by the Debt Recovery TriburwL, in transferi application No.231/98 dated ^y^vJCG-ri -^rV*^- j 05.01.2000/pro<»edingshave been brought against the petitioner. It is contended by Shri So^itam Bhaduri that the said tsiss was decided at Jabalpur on Q5.Q1.2000 while the petitioner was behind the bar in connection with ono'ther .case. Therefore, it is submitted that the same case ^ias decided ex parte. In the meantime, time to file review or ijppeal or revision lapsed. Hence, this petition before this Court. The only orievcnce Shri Siiutam Bhaduri hiqhliqhts before 1 . . £> ^ . ^-dl '~~rf I.. -. ~^f* WS. .1/?--^ <"-W . is that though the p^titioner^is^ne^Mntended to >^ ^-^v' ~n/sient .unless he be allowed t4 continue in his business it will ^-...—.„ -- „-.-.-__ -^ --.---.-_^ become impossible for him to make| payment. Shri P.S.Nair, leamed Seni|»r Advocate for the respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal at Jabalpur would have IwwBwr' to condone delay in terrhs of section 30 of Recovery of Oebts Due to Banks and Financiat Institutions Act, 1993. 7 Sff^I'BT f<i-ii<* sn^r •aTtite-dftg ^racR sn^i'??(Tiw-(riCT After hearing the courjsel representing -the part'ies, I am of Ihe view that for the ends of justice, Debts Recovery Tribunat at Jabalpur shouid examine the^ Until the maW'er is decided a9flinst tiie petitioner. The The petition is disposed Certified copy as per ru^s. ^ra-fepft'i iTreff-?-fezi ^fSRzrc ^ aifigTl <nt?t grievance of the writ petitioner ori merit. In -riiis view of the m4tter, tet -fhe writ petitioner approach the said Tribunal within a peri^d of 30 ckiys from today. On receipt of applicntion from Ihe pe(titioner the learned Tribunnt snull proceed to hear -the case ari^l dispose of the same expeditiou^ by the learned Tnt>8, cuti<*i proceedings pending before •tfie Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal shall remain stayed ijmd no coercive action shall be taken |Tribunal shall dispose of the matter expeditiously but hot later tt^an 06 six months from the date the applicatiori is moved. iof accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice ss \. <.^-..'