The Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction extends beyond the recovery of debt to include the release of securities and restoration of properties, and an order of restoration without intimating the principal creditor and the concern in whose name the tenancy was created violates the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) THIS instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No. II in Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 arising out of T. A. No. 309 of 1995, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the learned Receiver to restore the possession of Premises Nos. 72/2 and 72/4 Shambhu Nath Pandit St. to the opposite party Sri Kamal chowdhury within a period of 48 hours from the date of the receipt of the order.

( 2 ) CHALLENGING the authority of the Tribunal to pass an order for restoration of possession, Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that in granting such order, the learned Tribunal had exceeded its power and jurisdiction. Referring to the provision of Section 17 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of the DRT is confined in and limited to recovery of debt of the bank only. The debt of the bank having been recovered and realized on 30. 06. 06, the DRT had no authority and jurisdiction to pass an order of restoration on 18th July, 2006. The DRT having been made functus officio on and from 10th June, 2006, the usurpation of jurisdiction on 18th July, 2006 was totally illegal. It was not within the scope and ambit of the Debt recovery Tribunal either.

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the authority of the opposite party No. 2 to claim restoration of possession of the tenanted premises, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that the learned Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the case for recovery of the debt was filed against principal debtor M/s. Sterling pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. with opposite party No. 2 mr. Kamal Chowdhury figuring as one of the respondents. It is contended that the tenancy of the premises stood in the name of the firm - a fact which was even acknowledged by the opposite party No. 2 in his application under Order 39, Rule 4 C. P. C. filed by the opposite party No. 2 in Title Suit no. 102 of 2006. The symbolic possession of the premises having been obtained from M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. , the learned Tribunal ought to have directed restoration of the property in favour of the M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. products only.

( 4 ) REFERRING to the Form 32 relating to the resignation of the opposite party No. 2 from the post of Director, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that with the resignation of opposite party No. 2 from the Board of Director, he had no authority to represent the company. Suppressing the fact of resignation from the company and the order of injunction issued by the trial Court, the opposite party No. 2 Mr. Kamal Chowdhury, it is contended, moved the Tribunal after the disposal of the case and obtained an illegal order of restoration of possession in his favour. Mr. Sanjoy Rungta, Rohit rungta and Abhishek Dhariwal having been made Directors of the company to the knowledge of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 herein, the directors so appointed by the company were only entitled to seek for restoration of possession of the premises where the registered company is housed from the learned Receiver.

( 5 ) DRAWING the attention of the Court to the order-sheet dated 30. 06. 06, Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that the suit for recovery of loan registered as M. A. /21/2003 was finally disposed of on compromise with the Tribunal directing handing over possession of the properties to the Certificate Debtors within a period of 48 hours from the date of receipt of such order. M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. having figured as one of the Certificate Debtors, the Tribunal afterwards should not have passed an order for restoration of possession of the premises to opposite party No. 2 only. Such order was issued on the application filed by the erstwhile Director Mr. Kamal Chowdhury without intimating the petitioner. An erroneous order of restoration was issued, keeping the petitioner in the dark. The pri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document