Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

KHANDELWAL TUBE MILLS KAMGAAR SANGH THR. ITS SECRETARY LALSINGH S. YADAVversusASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY ASREC ( INDIA) LIMITED AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court directed the DRT to finally hear and dispose of Original Application No.66 of 2005 by 31‑December‑2026.

Summary

The Bombay High Court entertained a writ petition filed by the Khandelwal Tube Mills Kamgar Sangh seeking a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – I, Mumbai, to hear and dispose of Original Application No.66 of 2005 on a time‑bound basis. The petitioner also requested permission to amend the representation of Respondent No.1 to delete the erroneous abbreviation ‘ASREC’, which the Court allowed. Both the creditor (Respondent No.1) and the debtor (Respondent No.2) consented to an expeditious disposal and raised no objection to the direction. The Court observed that the presiding officer of the DRT should not be made a party to the proceedings. It held that the delay in disposing the original application was preventing the union from pursuing workers’ dues at the execution stage. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed by directing the DRT to finally hear and dispose of the original application by 31‑December‑2026.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to dispose of a pending application within a specified time‑frame.
  • Whether the presiding officer of the DRT can be made a party to the writ petition.
  • Whether amendment of the representation of a respondent to correct a typographical error is permissible.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • Debt Recovery Tribunal
  • time‑bound disposal
  • workers' dues
  • amendment of parties
  • procedural direction

Judgment

                                                                                             17_WP_11541_26.doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 11541 OF 2026

                             Khandelwal Tube Mills Kamgar Sangh,
                             Through Secretary Lalsingh S. Yadav              …              Petitioner
                                         vs.
                             Asset Reconstruction Company (India)
                             Limited and others                               …              Respondents

                             Ms. Somya Tripathi, i/b. T. N. Tripathi & Co. for petitioner.
                             Ms. Vaishali Bhilare for respondent No.1.
                             Mr. Somnath Iyer (through V.C.) for respondent No.2.


                                                                CORAM :       MANISH PITALE &
                                                                              SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
                                                                DATE      :   10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                             P.C. :


                             .        Heard learned counsel for the parties.


                             2.       At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
                             permission to amend the representation of respondent No.1 in the
                             cause title and to delete the alphabets ‘ASREC’ erroneously stated
                             therein.


                             3.       In the interest of justice, leave is granted to the petitioner to
                             carry out the aforesaid amendment. Amendment be carried out
                             forthwith.


                             4.       The union of the workers/employees of respondent No.2 has
                             filed this petition, seeking a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal
                             – I, Mumbai (DRT) to hear and decide pending Original Application
                             No.66 of 2005 in a time bound manner.
          Digitally signed

PRIYA
          by PRIYA
       KAMBLI

KAMBLI Date:
       2026.09.11                                                                                           1/2
          10:35:32 +0530
                                                                        17_WP_11541_26.doc




               5.    Respondent No.1 is the creditor and respondent No.2 is the
               debtor. Both are represented by counsel and they do not have any
               objection for appropriate direction being issued for expeditious
               disposal of the application.


               6.    Respondent No.3 is the presiding officer of DRT. We are of the
               opinion that in such matters, the tribunals/presiding officers should
               not be made parties.


               7.    We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
               petitioner – Union that it is only after the disposal of the aforesaid
               original application, that the petitioner will be able to pursue its
               claim towards workers dues at the stage of execution of recovery
               certificate. Delay in disposal of the aforesaid application is obviously
               postponing the stage at which the petitioner – Union can stake its
               claim and ensure that the dues of the workers are disbursed
               expeditiously.


               8.    In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by
               directing the DRT to finally hear and dispose of Original Application
               No.66 of 2005, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, on or
               before 31.12.2026.




               (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                        (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Priya Kambli

                                                                                       2/2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.