Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Boddu Prasad Rao – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the petition and tribunal's order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding ex parte order and appealability (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on alternative remedies available (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. interpretation of section 20 of the act (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion on the dismissal of civil revision petitions (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, in both the petitions.
2. The respondent-bank filed OA No.98 of 2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam, (in short 'Tribunal') against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is the 3rd defendant in the said O.A. The O.A., was allowed, by order, dated 18.08.2017.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 18.08.2017, the Tribunal closed the evidence of defendant as there was no evidence on behalf of the defendant, and passed the aforesaid ex parte order. As there was 10 days delay in filing the restoration application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 18.08.2017, he filed MA No.106 of 2017 in OA
Orders made by Debts Recovery Tribunal are appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, prohibiting judicial intervention absent exhaustion of statutory remedies.
The court emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements under the R.D.B. Act, 1993 and the availability of alternative remedies before approaching the High Court directly.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the availability of statutory alternative ....
The court ruled that appeals against procedural orders should not be subjected to deposit requirements under section 21 of the RDB Act, preserving natural justice.
High Court dismisses petition due to availability of statutory appeal under RDB Act Section 20.
The High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 if an effective remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
