Delhi High Court
M/S. Shoes East Ltd. vs Allahabad Bank on 28 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1997DELHI325, [1998]94COMPCAS475(DELHI), (1997)117PLR57, AIR 1997 DELHI 325, (1997) 67 DLT 551, (1998) 2 BANKCAS 250, (1997) BANKJ 724, (1998) 2 CIVLJ 725, (1998) 94 COMCAS 475, (1997) 117 PUN LR 57, (1997) 34 BANKLJ 461, (1998) 1 RECCIVR 602, (1999) 2 BANKCLR 310
Author: M.S.A. Siddiqui
Bench: M.S.A. Siddiqui
ORDER
1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24-5-1996 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal refusing to stay the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act).
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an adequate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act. It is undisputed that the Appellate Tribunal has since been constituted. Inevitably, the issue here has to run around the language of the statute and, therefore, the provisions of the Section 17 of the Act may be read at the very outset Section 17 reads as under :--
"Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the hanks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such hanks and financial institutions.
(2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act."
3. Section 19 of the Act deals with the filing of an application before the Tribunal and sub section (4) of Section 19 of this Act empowers the Tribunal to pass such orders on the application filed under Section 19 as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice under sub-section (6) of Section 19, the Tribunal may pass interlocutory orders in a pending proceedings. Section 20 of the Act gives a right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from an order of the Tribunal made under the Act. Section 20 reads as follows :--
"Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.
(2) No Appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by a Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made, or deemed to have been made, by the Tribunal is received by him and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if ii is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
(4) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (I), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or selling-aside the order appealed against.
(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the concerned Tribunal.
(6) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal."
4. The object of Section 20 is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. It is significant that sub-section (2) of Section 17 empowers the Appellate Tribunal to entertain appeals against "any order" made or deemed to have been made by the Tribunal under the Act. Section 20 gives a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by "an order" made or deemed to have been made by the Tribunal under the Act. In the context of Sections 17(2) and 20(1), the words "any order" or "an order" of the Tribunal made under the Act, include every order of the Tribunal made under the Act which affects the rights or liabilities of the parties. Even an interlocutory order passed under Section 19(6) of the Act is an order passed under the Act and is subject to appeal under Section 20(1) provided it affects some right or liability of any party. In this view of the matter, I am fortified by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 9 of 1996 (Shri M. C. Mittal v. Central Bank of India decided on 18-1-1996). Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal refusing to stay the proceedings is subject to appeal under Section 20(1) to the Appellate Tribunal.
5. The Act provides an adequate and efficacious remedy for obtaining relief in respect of any improper order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The remedy provided under Article 227 of the Constitution is not intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief before the Appellate Courts or Tribunals. In M. C. Mittal v. Central Bank of India (supra), it was held that a person who is aggrieved by an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot be permitted to abandon resort to the statutory remedy of appeal and to invoke constitution jurisdiction of this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed, Petitioner shall pay costs of the respondent Bank and bear its own. Counsel's fee is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-
7. Petition dismissed.