Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.INDIRESH
P V ARVIND – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grievance regarding debt recovery tribunal. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against establishment of drt. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. proposals for improving drts. (Para 5) |
| 4. duties of the union of india regarding court observations. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
E.S.INDIRESH, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is to direct the respondent-Union of India to constitute and establish a Full Time Debt Recovery Tribunal for the State of Karnataka.
3. Sri. R. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and Another reported in (2013) 2 SCC 574 and further submitted that learned ASG, had undertaken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to increase the number of DRTs /DRADs in the respective States, however, no steps have been take in this regard.
4. Per contra, Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned CGSC for the respondent-Union of India submitted that, the remedy available for the petitioners is to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, seeking implementation of the order pa
The Union of India is obligated to promptly implement improvements for Debt Recovery Tribunals, as suggested by the Supreme Court, underlining the supervisory authority of High Courts as stipulated i....
The jurisdiction for challenging appellate tribunal orders lies in the High Court corresponding to the original tribunal's location, affirming the principle that appellate orders merge with original ....
Courts can issue directions for urgent relief when the functioning of tribunals is delayed.
The Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal does not hold a civil post, and thus the Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over matters concerning such appointments under the Recov....
DRT cannot be said to be holding a civil post under the Union and therefore, CAT did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A..
The High Court cannot entertain petitions regarding tribunal compositions if the issues are pending before the Supreme Court.
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
