1 wp-3998-11.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3998 OF 2011 Jog Engineering Limited & anr. .... Petitioners vs Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL) & ors. .... Respondents Mr. A. S. Daver i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Kothari i/by M/s. Apex Law Partners for respondent no.1. Mr. V.N. Ajkumar i/by M/s. VNA Legal for respondent no.3. CORAM: DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : June 07, 2011 P.C.: The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has dismissed an Application for transfer of Original Application No.43/2008 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai to the Tribunal at Pune. 2 The Bank of Maharashtra and the Andhra Bank have filed an 2 wp-3998-11.sxw Original Application for the recovery of their dues before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune. The First Respondent is the applicant in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. The First Respondent is the assignee of the debts due and owing to the Development Credit Bank. The Original Application filed by the Respondent is ripe for final hearing. In these proceedings, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has not considered it appropriate or proper to transfer the proceedings from Mumbai to Pune which would result in delaying the final adjudication. 3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed a counter claim at Pune. On this ground, it has been submitted that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to transfer the proceedings from Mumbai to Pune. Now, it is common ground that no counter claim has been lodged as against the First Respondent in the pending proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. This has been noted in the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has also noted that all documents pertaining to the claim of the First Respondent against the Petitioners have been filed before the Debts 3 wp-3998-11.sxw Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. In this view of the matter and since the Original Application at Mumbai is ripe for hearing and final disposal, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal not to transfer the proceedings cannot be faulted. Acceding to the request of the Petitioner would only result in delaying the proceedings. No prejudice would result if the proceedings at Mumbai are allowed to go on. For these reasons, no case for the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)