1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7759 OF 2009 M/s.Preetsonal Investment and Finance Pvt.Ltd.and Others ..Petitioners V/s The Federal Bank Limited & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.B.Naik and Mr.Akhilesh Dubey i/by M/s.M.Tripathi & Co.for the Petitioners. Mr.V.V.Joglekar i/by M/s.Udwadia & Udeshi for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE: 16th November, 2009. P.C.: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the DRAT in Appeal No.188 of 2009. By that order the learned Appellate Tribunal has stayed further proceedings in RA No.2 of 2008 pending before the DRT in an appeal preferred by Respondent No.1. The 2 petitioners are aggrieved by the said order. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the orders dated 3.6.2009, 8.6.2009 & 1.7.2009 are Roznama entries showing what transpired on those dates and Respondent No.1 could not have preferred an appeal against the order. Those are not the orders falling within section 20 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDB Act). It is therefore submitted that the learned Tribunal could not have passed the impugned orders in the appeal which was not maintainable. Before the Appellate Tribunal there is also an appeal pending against the main Award passed by the DRT preferred by CIDCO, in which both the petitioners and the contesting respondents are parties. 4. By the present petition, the petitioners contend that the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 is not maintainable. The impugned order is without jurisdiction and consequently the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No.1 points out that considering the provisions of Order XXXXVI, as the appeal is pending, the Tribunal was within jurisdiction to grant stay insofar as review proceedings are concerned. 3 5. In our opinion, the present petition will have to be allowed. An appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 before the learned DRAT is clearly without jurisdiction as the Roznama entries of 3.6.2009, 8.6.2009 and 1.7.2009 would not constitute an order within the meaning of order u/s.20 of the RDB Act. The order must determine some rights of the parties so as to put an end to the proceedings. In the instant case, neither there is an end to any application or proceedings nor any rights of the parties are determined, as such. The appeal therefore preferred by Respondent No.1 is not maintainable and as such the interim order passed in that appeal also would not be maintainable. 6. At this stage, on behalf of Respondent No.1 the learned counsel submits that they will move the learned DRAT in the appeal preferred by CIDCO being Appeal No.78 of 2005 for same or similar reliefs as sought by them in Appeal No.188 of 2009, and that they will withdraw the appeal No.188 of 2009. 7. Considering the above, the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 4.8.2009 is quashed and set aside. (ii) In the event the Respondent No.1 withdraws the Misc.Appeal No.188 of 2009, it will be open to them to 4 move an application in Appeal No.78 of 2005 for same or similar reliefs. It will be open to the Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the parties to pass an appropriate orders according to law. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 9. We make it clear that all issues other than that decided in this petition, are kept open. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)