Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The writ petition at hand brings a challenge to the validity of the order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dismissing inter alia Appeal No.426/2013 which had been instituted by the petitioner to assail the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Original Application (OA) No.34/2007. He has to consequently deposit 25% of the amount claimed by the first respondent bank in the OA.

2. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, it was submitted by the counsel on both sides that the proceedings on the OA are now at final stages before the DRT. Though, in the submission of the counsel, no substantial question survives insofar as the parties herein are concerned, having regard to the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted, this Court has proceeded to hear the parties to pass a detailed judgment so that the wholly wrong notions which the two forums below seem to have entertained as to the jurisdiction, power and procedure of the authorities under RDDBFI Act are dispelled and such that the improprieties noted here are not indulged in again.

3. It is necessary to trace, albeit briefly, the background facts.

4. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the bank") instituted on 2.3.2007 the OA (No.34/2007) before the DRT seeking recovery of ₹27,62,059/- with future interest, impleading the petitioner as defendant No.2, alleging him to be the proprietor of M/s S P Enterprises, the second respondent (arrayed as defendant No.1). The third respondent Raman Gupta was joined in the OA as defendant No.3 inter alia on the averments that he had stood guarantee for due repayment of cash credit facilities taken by the petitioner in the name of the second respondent. The OA came up before the Registrar of DRT on 26.9.2007 when after scrutiny he directed "notices" to issue to the defendants in terms of Section 19(4) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) for 19.11.2007. On 19.11.2007 the Assistant Registrar recorded the proceedings inter alia noting that the petitioner had "refused" to receive the process issued by DRT on the OA also observing that in view of this report he was "deemed" to have been served. Noting non-appearance inter alia on behalf of the petitioner, the Assistant Registrar directed fresh notices to issue. On 18.12.2007, the third respondent (third defendant in the OA) appeared through counsel. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner or the second respondent. The Assistant Registrar recorded the proceedings holding the service to be complete and while noting non- appearance directed the matter to be listed before the Registrar on 23.01.2008 for completion of pleadings.

Matter be listed on 16.11.2012 for further proceedings."

9. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the direction for deposit of 25% of the amount "demanded by the applicant bank" made an application invoking Section 22 of RDDBFI Act seeking review and recall, inter alia pleading that he had no connection with the cash credit facility or with the second respondent in whose favour the bank had allowed the said arrangement. He claimed that he had been working for the said concern merely as an employee at the instance of the third respondent (a nephew) and had a good defence on merits and further that the direction was onerous and prejudicial.

27. The provision contained in Section 19(25) of RDDBFI Act has been referred by the DRAT in the impugned order. The clause reads as under :

" The Tribunal may make such orders and give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice."

28. In the specific context of Section 19(25) of RDDBFI Act, the Supreme Court in the case reported as Standard Chartered Bank V. Dharminder Bhohi [Judgments Today (2013) 13 SC 69] held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is required to function within statutory parameters and that "the Tribunal does not have any inherent powers and it is limpid that Section 19(25) confers limited powers".