Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B.M. MITRA, J.
State Bank of India - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer D R T Calcutta - Respondent
Decided on : Nov 20, 1998
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - REVIEW OF DECISION - SECTION 22(2)(E) OF THE RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993 - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION - GUIDING PRINCIPLES - APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 22(2)(e) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the Act), seeking review of an order dismissing an application under Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the DRT had erred in rejecting its adjournment petition and that it was entitled to a review of the dismissal order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition was in the nature of a review petition under Section 22(2)(e) of the Act and that the DRT had jurisdiction to entertain it. The court observed that the DRT was not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) but was guided by the principles of natural justice. The court found that the petitioner had a bona fide impression that the adjournment petition would be allowed and that it was not responsible for the failure of its deponent to appear on the date of hearing. The court also noted that the object of the Act was to ensure speedy recovery of public money and that a super technical approach would defeat the purpose of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition was in the nature of a review petition under Section 22(2)(e) of the Act? 2. Whether the DRT had jurisdiction to entertain the review petition? 3. Whether the DRT erred in rejecting the petitioner's adjournment petition? 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a review of the dismissal order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petition was in the nature of a review petition under Section 22(2)(e) of the Act, as it sought to recall an order that had finally adjudicated the matter. 2. The court held that the DRT had jurisdiction to entertain the review petition, as Section 22(2)(e) of the Act empowers the DRT to review its decisions. 3. The court held that the DRT erred in rejecting the petitioner's adjournment petition, as the petitioner had a bona fide impression that the adjournment petition would be allowed and that it was not responsible for the failure of its deponent to appear on the date of hearing. 4. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a review of the dismissal order, as the DRT had failed to consider the principles of natural justice and the object of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the review petition and recalled the order dismissing the application under Section 19 of the Act. The court directed the DRT to fix a peremptory hearing of the main matter and to provide an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence.
1. THE instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No. 17 dated 29.5.97 passed in MA/49/97 arising out of CA/130/96 passed by the presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta. The connected petition on which the impugned order is passed is annexed to the petition (vide annexure 'c' appended therein ). From the preface of the cause title of the petition it appears that the same purports to be an application under section 22 (2) (h) of the said Act read with Rule 18 of the Debt Recovery tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993. The connected petition on the basis of which the impugned order is passed contains a prayer for recalling of order No. 11, dated 27.8.97 so that O. A. No. 130 of 1996 be restored to its position prior to the order of dismissal. By the aforesaid Order no. 11, dated 27.8.97 a judgement was passed by the Debt Recovery tribunal and the entire parent application under Section 19 of the recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 stood dismissed leading to the termination of the pendency of the proceeding and/or lis. At the very outset, this court is confronted with the problem as to how the connected petition (vide Annexure C) is to be treated namely, as to whether in terms of the letter and the caption contained in the petition or it is required to be read in terms of its substance. It is well-known proposition in the legal domain that nomenclature given in the cause title of the petition will neither govern nor guide the nature and character of the petition but it shall have to be deciphered in terms of the substance contained in the petition. This Court is not oblivious of a germane prayer though cryptically referred to in the prayer portion, namely, of the recalling of an order dated 27.8.97 leading to final determination of the Us and what should be the nature and character attributed to the said petition. Before arriving at an inference about the nature and character of the said petition it is proper to go through the relevant averment contained in the said petition. It appears from the resume of the facts narrated in the said petition that on 22. 8. 97 the advocate of the applicant Bank was served with a copy of the petition on behalf of respondent No. 1 praying for an adjournment for peremptory hearing which was then fixed for hearing on 27. 8. 97 on the ground of illness of the said respondent. The then concerned officer of the connected branch of the Bank at the relevant point of time was transferred and posted as Branch Manager of Joyrampore Branch of State Bank of India, district Hooghly who was conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case and he was due to tender his evidence. In view of the service and receipt of a petition for adjournment on behalf of the said respondent no. 1 the applicant Bank developed reasonable belief that adjournment will be allowed. At the same time coinciding with the date there was a corresponding strike on all India basis of State Bank of India and in anticipation of the fact adjournment would be granted which would not be opposed on behalf of Bank, the Bank employees did not turn up. However, the petition for adjournment on behalf of respondent No. 1 inspite of consent given by the applicant Bank was rejected. Thereafter on behalf of applicant Bank a petition was filed for adjournment. The said petition filed in course of the same day on behalf of the Bank for adjournment stood rejected and applicant Bank was asked to adduce evidence when the connected case was called for peremptory hearing. The applicant Bank was represented by its lawyer as the concerned deponent on behalf of bank did not turn up because of the reasons as mentioned in the adjournment petition and the Bank could not lead any evidence in the case. As a result of that by Order No. 11, dated 27.8.97 the original application No. 130 of 1996 which has character of the parent application under Section 19 o
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
