Madras High Court
Sumangal Jewellers And Ors. vs The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery ... on 19 September, 2000
ORDER K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The petitioners filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 8.3.2000 in I.A. No. 21 of 2000 in O.A. No. 838 of 1999 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai as a Nullity.
2. The petitioners are defendants in O.A. No. 838/1999 and they suffered by an ex parte order at the instance of the third respondent. To set aside the ex parte order, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 21 of 2000. The Registrar of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai in the impugned order allowed the petition on condition the petitioners have to pay at least one-fifth of the total suit claim, towards the partial discharge of their debt to the 3rd respondent Bank, besides directing them to file their reply statement on or before 19.4.2000. It is also stated that if the said conditions are not complied with, the application shall be dismissed.
3. The order is challenged only on the ground that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to deal with the said application.
4. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) was enacted for the purpose of establishment of Tribunal for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and financial institutions."
5. Section 2(o) of the Act defined' Tribunal' which means the Tribunal established under Sub-section (1) of Section 3. According to Section 3, the Central Government shall, by notification, have to establish one or more Tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal or under the Act. The Central Government shall also specify the area within which the Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction for entertaining and deciding the applications filed before it. Section 4 deals with composition of Tribunal. It shall consist of one person only who is the Presiding Officer to be appointed by notification, by the Central Government.
6. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Registrar has not been defined under the Act, now provisions have been made for the appointment of the "Registrar" in the Act itself. Only under the rules, "Registrar" has been defined as the Registrar of the Tribunal. The powers and functions of the Registrar has been defined under the Rule 22 which read as follows:
"22. Powers and functions of the Registrar
1. The Registrar shall have the custody of the records of the Tribunal and shall exercise such other functions as are assigned to him under these rules or by the Presiding Officer by a separate order in writing.
2. The official seal shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar,
3. Subject to any general or special direction by the Presiding Officer, the seal of the Tribunal shall not be affixed, to any other, summon or other process save under the authority in writing from the Registrar.
4. The seal of the Tribunal shall not be affixed to any certified copy issued by the Tribunal save under the authority in writing of the Registrar;
5. Additional powers and duties of Registrar also has been defined under Rule 23 which read as follows :
23. "Additional powers and duties of Registrar : In addition to the powers conferred elsewhere in these rules, the Registrar shall have the following powers and duties subject to any general or special order of the Presiding Officer, Namely :
1. to receive all applications and other documents including transferred applications:
2. to decide all questions arising out of the scrutiny of the applications before they are registered;
3. to require any application presented to the Tribunal to be amended in accordance with the rules;
4. subject to the direction of the Presiding Officer, to fix date of hearing of the application or other proceedings and issue notices thereof;
5. direct any formal amendment of records;
6. to order grant of copies of document to parties to proceedings;
7. to grant leave to inspect the records of Tribunal;
8. dispose of all matters relating to the service of notices or other processes, applications for the issue of fresh notices or for extending the time for or ordering a particular method of Service on a defendant including a substituted service by publication of the notice by way of advertisements in the newspapers;
9. to requisition records from the custody of any Court or other authority.
From, the above said rules, namely Rules 22 and 23 the Registrar shall exercise such other functions as are assigned to him under these rules or by the Presiding Officer by a separate order in writing.
7. On the basis of Rule 22, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the Registrar has been assigned with a power to dispose of the application to set aside the ex parts order by the Presiding Officer and so he is having jurisdiction to deal with the said application. I am not able to accept the said submission. From the reading of the scheme of the Act, the judicial function can be done only by the Presiding Officer and Registrar cannot replace him in judicial work. This view of mine is supported by Section 3(2) of the Act. From the said provision it can be seen that the Tribunal atone can decide the applications filed before it and according to Section 4 the Tribunal shall consist of one person only, namely, the Presiding Officer. Such a power is governed only to the Presiding Officer under the Act. The Presiding Officer cannot delegate the judicial power to the Registrar who is only meant for administrative functions and other functions specifically mentioned under Rules 22 and 23 of the Rules.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Allahabad Bank, Calcutta v. Radha Krishna Maity and Ors.. In the said judgment the Apex Court has not dealt with the scope of jurisdiction of the Registrar so the said judgment cannot be relied on to decide the issue in this case. He has also relied on the judgment rendered by P. Shanmugam, J. in C.R.P. No. 3467 of 1999 on 22.11.1999 in support of his submission. In the said case, the learned Judge has not dealt with the provisions with respect to the powers of the Registrar. The learned Judge has decided the case only on facts of that case. So the said judgment cannot also be treated as the precedent for the issue in this case.
9. In view of the above. I am inclined to hold that the Registrar is not having power to decide the application which has to be decided by the Presiding Officer and so the impugned order has-to be set aside as the Registrar is not having jurisdiction to decide the issue. Hence the order passed in LA. No. 21 of 2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal by the Presiding Officer.
10. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected W.M.P. No. 10152 of 2000 is closed.