Back
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
V.R. DATAR, P.O.
Appeal No.62 of 1999
Decided on 16.9.1999
UCO BANK
Versus
M/S. UNIVERSAL WIRES & INDUSTRIES & ORS.
The right of an aggrieved person to prefer an appeal against an order of the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, is not taken away by the use of the word 'final' in Rule 5(5) of the (Procedure) Rules.
Headnote:
UCO BANK V. M/S. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION - [RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993] - [SECTION 19, 20, RULE 5(5), 16] - SUMMARY: The UCO Bank filed an appeal challenging the order of the Presiding Officer of DRT, Patna, which dismissed its appeal against the Registrar's order declining to register the Bank's application under Section 19 of the RDDB & FI Act for a recovery certificate. The Bank argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal as the Registrar's order was never communicated to it, and even if there was a delay, it should be condoned due to the negligence of its Advocate. The Court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 20 of the Act, which provides for an appeal against any order made by the Tribunal. It also found that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as the Bank had promptly filed the appeal upon learning about the Registrar's order. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Presiding Officer DRT, Patna, with a direction to register the appeal and decide it on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The UCO Bank filed an application under Section 19 of the RDDB & FI Act for a recovery certificate of an amount of Rs.1,40,78,000/- against the respondents before the DRT at Patna. The Registrar of the DRT scrutinized the application and noted certain defects, and extended time for their removal. However, the Bank failed to rectify the defects within the time granted, and the Registrar refused registration of the application. The Bank engaged a new Advocate, who obtained a copy of the Registrar's order and filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer of DRT, Patna, seeking to set aside the order and restore the matter for registration. The Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal, holding that there was a delay in filing the appeal and that the Bank had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 20 of the Act, which provides for an appeal against any order made by the Tribunal. It also found that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as the Bank had promptly filed the appeal upon learning about the Registrar's order. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Presiding Officer DRT, Patna, with a direction to register the appeal and decide it on merits.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was maintainable under Section 20 of the Act? 2. Whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 20 of the Act, which provides for an appeal against any order made by the Tribunal. The Court found that the word 'final' used in Rule 5(5) of the (Procedure) Rules, which provides for an appeal against the Registrar's order, does not take away the right of the aggrieved person to prefer an appeal against the order of DRT nor of this Tribunal to entertain the appeal. 2. The Court found that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as the Bank had promptly filed the appeal upon learning about the Registrar's order. The Court relied on the fact that the Bank had engaged a new Advocate, who took immediate steps to obtain a copy of the Registrar's order and file the appeal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the Presiding Officer DRT, Patna, with a direction to register the appeal and decide it on merits.
V.R.Datar, P.O. - The UCO Bank has filed present appeal impugning therein an order of the Presiding Officer of DRT, Patna dated 31.5.1999. The memorandum of appeal was filed by the appellant under Rule (5) of DRT (procedure) Rules, 1993 along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Patna has declined to condone the delay and also dismissed the appeal holding that it was meritless. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
2. The appellant UCO Bank presented the application under Section 19 of the RDDB & FI Act for a recovery certificate of an amount of Rs.1,40,78,000/- on 27.3.1997 against the respondents herein before the DRT at Patna. For filing the said application the appellant Bank engaged services of Advocate Mr. B.P. Tandon. The Office of the Registrar, DRT, Patna scrutinised the application and noted certain defects and an order was passed under the signature of the Registrar for removal of those defects by 20.4.1998. Since, none appeared and rectified the defects, time was extended firstly to 13.5.1998 and then to 18.6.1998. Ultimately on 23.10.1998, the Registrar DRT, Patna refused registration of the application for non-removal of defects within the time granted.
3. According to the case of the appellant Bank, Mr. Tandon, Advocate, did not apprise the appellant of the progress of the matter for a long time. As such due to unsatisfactory services of Mr. Tandon, the appellant Bank discharged him and engaged Mr. Shambhunath Chowbe as the Advocate to attend to the said matter. This was done on 21.12.1998. A letter to that effect was written to the Registrar of the DRT at patna on 5.1.1999. Advocate Mr. Shambhunath chowbe took inspection of the records in the office of DRT at Patna and learnt the aforesaid facts. As such Mr. Chowbe, Advocate obtained an ordinary copy of the scrutiny report and the order and informed the appellant Bank. Accordingly on 6.1.1999 the appellant Bank applied for certified copy of the order of Registrar dated 23.10.1998 and the same was supplied to the appellant on 18.1.1999. Therefore, on 20.1.1999 the appellant Bank filed the appeal as provided in Rule (5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 before the Presiding Officer of DRT, patna for setting aside the order of registrar and permission to remove the defects and for order of restoration of matter and registration thereof. This appeal came to be numbered as appeal No. 62 of 1999. It was out of abundant caution that the appellant Bank filed an application for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the said appeal.
4. The learned Presiding Officer after hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that there was a delay in filing the appeal and that the same was not properly explained. As such there was no sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Further the learned Presiding Officer entered into the merits of the appeal and came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground made out by the Bank for non-removal of objections raised by the officers and therefor the appeal itself was without any merit. On both the grounds therefore the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal of the appellant Bank as stated above and this order is challenged in the present appeal.
5. The appellant Bank is represented by Mr. B.M. Gupta, Advocate while on behalf of respondents initially Mr. Shrivastav, Advocate appeared and undertook to file Vakalatnama except for respondent 2 for whom he had tendered his Vakalatnama. Later on Mr. Shrivastav did not appear. One Mr. R.K. Sharma, Charted Accountant holding power of attorney on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 appeared and argued this matter by filing reply. Mr. Gupta for the appellant submitted that in fact there was no delay in preferring the appeal under Rule (5) of the (Procedure) Rules before the Presiding Officer, inasmuch as under the Procedure R
