High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya
NAVIN JAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
C. O. 2188 Of 2001
Decided On : 03/20/2002
ARTICLE 227 - POWER OF SUPERINTENDENCE - DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT'S POWER OF SUPERINTENDENCE OVER TRIBUNAL - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 226 AND 227 - DISTINCTION - MAINTENANCE OF APPLICATION - JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, affirming an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The compromise decree obtained by the bank against the petitioners was challenged on the ground of fraud. The petitioners filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, seeking to send back the entire records to the original Court for deciding the issue of fraud. The application was rejected. Petitioners filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, alleging non-disposal of the prayer for setting aside the decree on the ground of fraud. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Petitioners filed a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable before it as it had no power of superintendence over the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The Court noted that the appellate Tribunal was situated within the territorial limit of the High Court, but that fact alone could not confer jurisdiction to scrutinize an order passed by such Tribunal in any appeal preferred against a decision of the Original Tribunal over which the High Court had no power of superintendence. The Court further held that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner lay by moving the Jharkhand High Court within the territorial limit of which the cause of action had arisen.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the power of superintendence over the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. 2. Whether the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to Courts and Tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. 2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. 3. The fact that the appellate Tribunal is situated within the territorial limit of the High Court does not confer jurisdiction to scrutinize an order passed by such Tribunal in an appeal preferred against a decision of the Original Tribunal over which the High Court has no power of superintendence. 4. The appropriate remedy of the petitioner lies by moving the Jharkhand High Court within the territorial limit of which the cause of action had arisen.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as not maintainable.
( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of four of the defendants and is directed against order dated June 1, 2001 passed by the Chair Person, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta in Appeal No. DRAT/cal/a-3 of 2001 thereby affirming order dated March 28, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in Execution Case No. 55 of 1999.
( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that a Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 65 of 1995 initiated by the bank against ten persons including the present petitioners in the first Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad was disposed of on compromise. The terms of the compromise are stated below :"i) That the defendants do pay a lump sum of Rs. 7. 00 crores to the plaintiffs, as per the terms of the compromise, within 90 days from the date of issuing an objection certificate by the plaintiff for approaching of the other financial institution/bank/bodies for availing credit facilities, failing which the defendants shall pay the entire admitted claim as shown in para 1 above into Court within a period of sixty days thereafter or any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by the Court. ii) That, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the Court may fix of such amount as the Court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 1 together with subsequent such interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into Court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property; in the Court mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required, recovery or re-transfer the said property from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceable possession of the said property. iii) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the Court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgage property, and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold, and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the Court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession of power relating to the mortgaged property. iv) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realised by such sale shall be paid into Court and shall be duly applied after deduction therefore of the expenses of the sale in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders, that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the Court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same. v) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the Court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.