Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.33 seconds)Section 20 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs Dunlop India Ltd. And Ors on 30 November, 1984
In Assistant Collector, Central Excise v. J.H. Industries, and Assistant Collector, C.E., Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd., , the Supreme Court has held that there will be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is an alternative remedy unless if the statutory remedy is likely to be too dilatory or difficult to give quick relief or. ill-suited to meet the demands of the situations. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that till such time the Supreme Court passes its verdict on the validity of the Act, and till such time proper constitution of such Regional Appellate Tribunals, it would be in the interest of justice and in the interest of litigant public, for the High Court to exercise its powers of scrutiny of at least the interlocutory orders of the Tribunals and that therefore, any writ of certiorari in the context would be entertained by this Court in its discretion.
Section 21 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
M/S. Pratap Ch. Dey And Others vs Allahabad Bank And Others on 30 September, 1996
(b) It is admitted that as on the date, only one Appellate Tribunal has been constituted under the Act which is stationed at Bombay. It is true that Mr.A.L. Somayaji, contended that there are certain other forums like the Company Law Board or National Consumer Forum which are stationed at distance places and that cannot be a reason to by-pass an alternative remedy. In this context it is to be borne in mind that we are dealing with interlocutory orders and not final orders. I agree with the views expressed by the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in M/s Pratap Ch. Dey v. Allahabad Bank, , to the extent of his observation that to expect a litigant to approach the Appellate Tribunal at Bombay as against simple interlocutory order of the Tribunal, "shall involve not only huge expenses, but also considerable period of time and the delay in disposal of the appeal shall defeat the very purpose of the Act". If the appeals against all interlocutory orders through out the country are to be truly and seriously entertained, heard and disposed of by only one Appellate Tribunal constituted at Bombay, one can easily visualise the resultant situation. Section 8 of the Act contemplates constitution of more than one Appellate Tribunal. There should be at least four Appellate Tribunals one for each region, if not one for each State. The failure on the part of the Central
Government to have constituted adequate number of Appellate Tribunals to serve all the Regions in the country in terms of the Act, cannot be an excuse to inflict hardship on the litigant public. Undoubtedly, the object of the Legislature in having brought-forth the Act may be welcome and in the interest of the expeditious disposal of cases from the angle of public interest. But if the Executive while implementing the objects of the Act, chooses to be indifferent to furnish proper and adequate infrastructure to enable these Tribunals to effectively take over the functions of the Civil Courts, the resultant situation would be only worsening the existing state of affairs and putting the litigants to lot of miseries. The legal and litigant fraternity in our country are aware of how the Tribunals constituted recently under various enactments are functioning much to the disappointment of everyone. To expect a loanee at Kanniyakumari or Madurai, to go to Bombay to file an appeal against an interlocutory order, is to say the least, unfair.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
13. The principles stated on behalf of the respondent Bank on the basis of the numerous decisions relied upon by Mr. A.L. somayaji are unexceptionable. This Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of
India cannot be converted intoan Appellate or Revisional forum for all the statutory appeals for which regular authorities are prescribed under the Act. But as a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in U.P. State v. Mohd. Nooh, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 86 pointed out, "there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute." In the present cases, I am inclined to hold that there are at least two requisite grounds to permit the petitioners to approach this Court as mentioned below, subject to the aggrieved parties having moved the Tribunal itself for vacating the interim orders and final orders being passed thereon:
Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985
(a) The validity of the Act and the Constitution of the Tribunals are under challenge and at least one Division Bench of a High Court has declared the provisions as ultra vires and void. The interim directions issued by the Supreme Court is only to enable continuance of the functions of the Tribunal, but not a bar on the power of the High Courts to scrutinies the correctness of the orders issued by Tribunals. That the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised where the validity of the Act is questioned, is approved by a few decisions of the Supreme Court. Apart from the two decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioners in Baburam v. Zilla Parishad, and Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, in the judgment reported in Asstt. Collector, C.E. Chandran Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd., also the challenge to the vires of the Act is mentioned as ground which may warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy. Therefore, in these cases, there is no harm in the High Court scrutinising the correctioness of interlocutory orders till such time the Supreme Court renders its decision on the validity of the Act.